Kress Biblical Resources

www.kressbiblical.com

Amillennialism and the Age to Come

Copyright © 2016 by Matt Waymeyer
ISBN 978-1-934952-25-2
All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form without the
written permission of the copyright owner, except for brief excerpts quoted in critical
reviews.
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture is taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD
BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1977, 1995 by the Lockman
Foundation. Used by permission.
Cover design by Cherith Festa
Interior design and typeset by Katherine Lloyd, theDESKonline.com
 To Michael Vlach,
whose friendship and faithful example
continually spur me on to greater diligence
in my study of God’s Word
 Contents

Preface

Abbreviations

Chapter Introduction to the Two-Age Model

1

PART 1: e Intermediate Kingdom in the Old Testament

Chapter e Intermediate Kingdom in the Psalms and Prophets

2

Chapter e Intermediate Kingdom in Isaiah 65:17–25

3

Chapter e Intermediate Kingdom in Zechariah

4

Chapter e Intermediate Kingdom in Isaiah 24:21–23

5

PART 2: e Two-Age Argument in the New Testament

Chapter e Succession of the Two Ages

6

Chapter e Characteristics of the Two Ages

7

Chapter e Resurrection and Judgment of All Mankind

8
Chapter e Destruction and Renewal of the Cosmos
9

Chapter e Final Victory over Sin and Death

10

PART 3: e Intermediate Kingdom in Revelation 20

Chapter e Timing of Satan’s Binding

11

Chapter e Nature of the First Resurrection

12

Chapter e Duration of the ousand Years

13

Chapter e Chronology of John’s Visions

14

Chapter Conclusion
15

Appendix e Intermediate Kingdom in Intertestamental Judaism

Scripture Index
 Preface

One of the most encouraging developments in evangelicalism over the

past several decades has been the remarkable resurgence of reformed
theology. is rediscovery of the doctrines of grace has not only captured
the Bible’s emphasis on the sovereignty of God in salvation but also
strengthened the unity of the church around the centrality of the gospel. In
the area of eschatology, however, I have noticed two concerning trends
among those who have joined this reformation.
e rst involves what I call eschatological agnosticism. To be sure,
eschatology is one of the most difficult theological issues to understand,
especially when it comes to the ner details. But some Christians, although
diligent students of Scripture in every other area, avoid the topic altogether
and appear content to place themselves in the category of undecided. Some
even seem proud of their agnosticism, as if ignorance about the meaning of
biblical prophecy is evidence of a commitment to more signi cant matters.
But affirming the centrality of the gospel should not mean dismissing the
importance of how God will accomplish the restoration of all things to
Himself. Scripture reveals too much about the subject of eschatology for
Christians to be content in the dark, especially those who preach the Word
and shepherd the ock.
A second trend is the way that some Christians are quick to embrace
amillennialism simply because they see it as the reformed position on the
end times. is appears to be most common among former Arminians.
Aer an initial exposure to reformed theology, they spend the next several
years diligently studying the Bible’s teaching on predestination before nally
identifying themselves as Calvinists. But their subsequent conversion to
amillennialism takes place overnight—and oentimes with very little rst-
hand study of the biblical text—simply because they see it as an
indispensable part of the reformed system. In contrast, the commitment to
sola scriptura at the heart of reformed theology should drive us to a careful
exegesis of the relevant biblical passages, in search of what God has revealed
about the end times. Only then is the student of Scripture ready to take a
rm position on this difficult issue.
is book presents an invitation to those who may nd themselves
caught up in either one of these trends. Whether an eschatological agnostic
who has never studied the millennial debate, or an amillennialist who has
failed to give this issue the careful attention it deserves, the reader is
challenged to consider this premillennial response to the most compelling
arguments for amillennialism. e goal of this book is not only to clarify the
key differences between these two competing millennial views, but also to
provide an exegetical critique of the two-age model of amillennialism. In
considering this response, the reader is encouraged to be diligent in his own
study of Scripture, weighing carefully the arguments on both sides of the
debate. Just as importantly, he is also encouraged to let that study spur him
on to greater holiness as he eagerly awaits the blessed hope and appearing of
our great God and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Matt Waymeyer
Jupiter, Florida
March 2016
 Abbreviations

ASV American Standard Version

BDAG Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 1999
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Bib Biblica
BSac Bibliotheca Sacra
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
EBC Expositor’s Bible Commentary
EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by H. Balz,
G. Schneider. ET. Grand Rapids, 1990–1993
EGT e Expositor’s Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll.
5 vols. Grand Rapids, 1974
ESV English Standard Version
GTJ Grace eological Journal
HALOT Koehler, L., Buamgartner and J. J. Stamm, e Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited
under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden.
1994–1999
HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible
HOTC Holman Old Testament Commentary
ICC International Critical Commentary
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal of the Evangelical eological Society
KJV King James Version
L&N Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic
Domains. Edited by J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida. 2d ed. New York,
1989
MSJ e Master’s Seminary Journal
NAC New American Commentary
NASB New American Standard Bible
NCBC e New Century Bible Commentary Series
NCV New Century Version
NET New English Translation (NET Bible)
NIBC New International Biblical Commentary
NIBCNT New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament eology. Edited
by Colin Brown. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, 1975–85
NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament eology and
Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids,
1997
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIV New International Version
NKJV New King James Version
NLT New Living Translation
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
NTC New Testament Commentary
PCS e Preacher’s Commentary Series
PNTC e Pillar New Testament Commentary
R&R Reformation & Revival
RefJ e Reformed Journal
RevExp Review and Expositor
RSV Revised Standard Version
TDNT eological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel
and G. Friederich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand
Rapids, 1964–1976
em emelios
TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WTJ Westminster eological Journal
ZECNT Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
 Chapter 1

Introduction to the Two-Age

Model

INTRODUCTION

In the debate between premillennialism and amillennialism, the most

fundamental disagreement concerns the thousand-year reign of Christ in
Revelation 20. Premillennialists believe the thousand years refers to a future
reign of Jesus on earth, an intermediate kingdom between His Second
Coming and the nal consummation. But amillennialists believe it describes
the current reign of Christ throughout the present age. For this reason, while
premillennialism affirms an earthly kingdom between the present age and
the eternal state, amillennialism denies this intermediate kingdom, arguing
instead that the present age will be followed immediately by the new
heavens and new earth.

THE TWO-AGE MODEL OF AMILLENNIALISM

One of the strongest arguments for the amillennial view involves what is
known as the “two-age model,” an eschatological framework rst
highlighted by Geerhardus Vos in the early twentieth century. According to
Vos, whose contributions are considered “nothing less than epochal in their
signi cance for the history of eschatological thought,”1 the fundamental
structure of biblical eschatology is presented in two successive ages, “this
age” and “the age to come.”2 Vos believed that these two ages cover biblical
history and thereby constitute the basic framework of New Testament
eschatology.3
Although several amillennialists built upon the foundation laid by Vos,4
this model was not fully developed as a key argument in the millennial
debate until the 2003 publication of A Case for Amillennialism by Kim
Riddlebarger. In this landmark work, which was revised and expanded in
2013, Riddlebarger argued that the two-age model “enables us to make sense
of eschatological language in the New Testament, speci cally as it relates to
the future and the millennial age.”5 Riddlebarger popularized this model as a
polemic against premillennialism and placed it at the center of the case for
amillennialism.6 Since then, the two-age model has become the primary
argument for the amillennial view.

THE TWO-AGE MODEL AS AN ESCHATOLOGICAL

FRAMEWORK
To establish the two-age model as the eschatological framework of the New
Testament, amillennialists point to the various passages in the gospels and
epistles which refer to “this age” and “the age to come.”7 Some of these
passages refer only to this age (Matt 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Rom 12:2; 1
Cor 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18; 2 Cor 4:4; Gal 1:4; Eph 2:2; 1 Tim 6:17–19; Titus 2:12);
another refers only to the age to come (Heb 6:5); and still others refer to
both this age and the age to come (Matt 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30;
20:34–35; Eph 1:21).8 e two-fold division of this temporal framework is
seen most explicitly in this nal category, the ve passages which present a
clear contrast between the two ages:

Matthew 12:32: “either in this age or in the age to come”

Mark 10:30: “now in the present age … and in the age to come”
Luke 18:30: “at this time and in the age to come”
Luke 20:34–35: “this age … that age”
Ephesians 1:21: “not only in this age but also in the one to come”
 According to Riddlebarger, the New Testament describes these ages as
two successively and qualitatively distinct eschatological periods of time.9 At
the same time, even though believers live in this age and eagerly await the
arrival of the age to come, because the kingdom of God is present here and
now, the age to come is also seen as a current reality for those who are in
Christ.10 For this reason, Christians are said to live in the eschatological
tension between the already and the not yet, as citizens of the coming age
who wait for the fullness of its arrival.11 is results in an overlap of the two
ages in which the age to come is considered both present and future.12

THE TWO-AGE MODEL AS AN INTERPRETIVE GRID

Because it serves as the overall framework of the New Testament,
Riddlebarger argues that the two-age model also functions as “the
interpretive grid through which amillennialists should understand the
biblical concept of future history.”13 Riddlebarger laments that “the two ages
have not been properly considered as a major interpretive grid,”14 but
amillennialists have increasingly regarded this model as the hermeneutical
lens through which the rest of Scripture, including Revelation 20, should be
viewed.15
To validate this interpretive approach, amillennialists typically appeal to
the hermeneutical principle known as the analogy of faith.16 As Riddlebarger
explains:

is refers to the importance of interpreting an unclear biblical text

in light of clear passages that speak to the same subject rather than
taking the literal sense in isolation from the rest of Scripture. Texts
that speak of last things must, therefore, be interpreted by other
biblical passages.17

Because amillennialists consider Revelation 20 to be “unclear,” “difficult,”

and “obscure,” they insist it must be interpreted in light of the clear two-age
passages in the gospels and epistles.18 According to this approach, “any
exposition of Revelation 20 should take place with the broader eschatology
of the New Testament rmly in mind.”19 is means using the two-age
model as the interpretive key to understanding John’s vision of the
millennial reign of Christ.20
With this model as the hermeneutical grid for the rest of Scripture,
amillennialists come to Revelation 20 with the assumption that it does not—
and indeed cannot—teach the existence of an intermediate kingdom
between the present age and the eternal state.21 As amillennialist William
Cox explained a generation ago:

Amillenarians reached their conclusions on the millennium by

comparing Revelation 20 with the clear passages of Scripture…. No
clear passage of Scripture anywhere speaks of an earthly,
materialistic millennium like the one put forth like the millenarians.
As a matter of fact, their alleged millennium militates against many
clear passages of the Bible. e Scriptures outline but two ages: the
present age and the age to come. e age to come is everywhere said
to be eternal, and would therefore be in complete contradistinction
to an interregnum of one thousand years.22

For that reason, amillennialists argue that “John’s single apocalyptic passage
in Revelation 20 cannot be allowed to contradict the clear teachings of the
entire New Testament.”23
is same hermeneutical approach is re ected in the argument of
amillennialist Anthony Hoekema:

Since a millennial earthly reign of Christ is taught nowhere else in

Scripture, and since the characteristics of this millennial reign
con ict with what Scripture teaches elsewhere about the Second
Coming and about the age to come which follows it, why should we
affirm that Revelation 20:1–6 teaches that there will be such a reign?
Instead of insisting that Revelation 20 affirms a teaching which is not
found elsewhere in the Bible, is it not wiser to interpret these difficult
verses in an apocalyptic book in the light of and in harmony with the
clear teachings of the rest of Scripture?24

In a similar way, amillennialist Sam Storms argues that “the statements in

other New Testament books concerning end-time chronology necessarily
and logically preclude the notion of a post-parousia millennial age in
Revelation 20.”25 For this reason, amillennialists argue that for
premillennialists to affirm the existence of an intermediate kingdom in
Revelation 20, they must be willing “to set aside the entire New Testament,
or force it into arti cial interpretations.”26 Whatever Revelation 20 means,
amillennialists insist that it absolutely cannot be understood to teach
premillennialism.27

THE TWO-AGE MODEL AS AN AMILLENNIAL

ARGUMENT
e two-age model is used not merely as an argument for the amillennial
view of Revelation 20, but also as a decisive refutation of the messianic
kingdom of premillennialism. More speci cally, amillennialists have used
the two-age model to argue against the possibility of this intermediate
kingdom in three distinct ways:

1. Because “the age to come” will immediately follow this present

age (Matt 12:32; Eph 1:21), there is no gap of time between the
two ages to allow for the intermediate kingdom of
premillennialism.

2. Because the qualities ascribed to “the age to come” are all eternal
in nature (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:34–36), the temporal
aspects of premillennialism’s intermediate kingdom—such as sin,
death, and procreation—render it incompatible with the coming
age.

3. Because the Second Coming is the line of demarcation between

the two ages—and because it will be accompanied by the
resurrection and judgment of all mankind (Dan 12:2; John 5:28–
29; Acts 24:15; Matt 25:31–46; 2 ess 1:6–10), the destruction
and renewal of the cosmos (2 Pet 3:10–13; Rom 8:18–23), and
the nal victory over sin and death (1 Cor 15:20–28, 50–57; Rom
8:17–23)—there is no gap of time to allow for the intermediate
kingdom of premillennialism.
 THE NEED FOR A PREMILLENNIAL RESPONSE
Despite the growing popularity and in uence of the two-age model, none of
the major premillennial works in recent years has directly and substantially
addressed this amillennial argument.28 Because any compelling defense of
premillennialism must respond to the strongest and most recent
argumentation of its theological opponents, a premillennial critique of the
two-age model is long overdue. e purpose of this book is to provide such
a critique.
e need for this critique is strengthened further by the way the two-age
model is used as a hermeneutical lens for the rest of Scripture. Because this
model functions as an interpretive grid, amillennialists come to Revelation
20:1–6 with the assumption that it cannot describe an intermediate kingdom
between the present age and the eternal state. erefore, when the
premillennialist appeals to Revelation 20 as evidence for his position, his
argument falls on deaf ears because the two-age model has already settled
the issue in the mind of the amillennialist. Likewise, when the amillennialist
appeals to the two-age model as evidence that the eternal state immediately
follows the Second Coming—thereby precluding an intermediate kingdom
—his argument is equally unconvincing because Revelation 20 has already
settled the issue in the mind of the premillennialist. In this way, the debate
oen consists of the two sides talking past one another, never substantially
responding to the strongest arguments of the other.
In contrast, this critique takes seriously the need to engage with the case
for amillennialism at its most compelling point by addressing the question
of whether the two-age model precludes the possibility of an intermediate
kingdom. In the process, its goal is to represent the teaching of
amillennialists as fairly and accurately as possible, presenting their views
and arguments in a way that they themselves would eagerly embrace. It also
takes seriously the need to harmonize the entirety of Scripture’s teaching
about the age to come, including Revelation 20, in order to construct a truly
biblical eschatology.

REVISITING THE HERMENEUTICAL FOUNDATION

Such a critique must begin in the realm of hermeneutics. At the outset, two
hermeneutical problems plague the two-age argument for amillennialism.
e rst problem concerns identifying Revelation 20 as an unclear passage
which needs to be interpreted by clearer passages in the gospels and epistles.
Even though Revelation is indeed the most symbolic book in the New
Testament—and even though some passages in the Apocalypse are difficult
to understand—no other biblical passage contains nearly the amount of
clarity and chronological detail regarding the sequence of events that will
take place aer the Second Coming. is clarity is oen obscured by the
intricate interpretations of Revelation 20 offered by amillennialists, but a
straightforward reading of the events described in Revelation 19–21 is
neither confusing nor difficult to follow.29 For this reason, to use passages
containing far less detail (and therefore far less clarity) to interpret
Revelation 20 is an unsound hermeneutical approach.
Part of the difficulty with using “clear” passages to interpret “unclear”
passages is the subjectivity involved in deciding which passages belong in
which category. Identifying as “clear” those passages which appear to
support one’s view may inadvertently become a means of silencing those
passages which contradict it. Rather than using one passage to interpret
another, the more objective approach is to interpret each passage in its own
context and then to harmonize the contribution of each passage into a
systematic understanding of the doctrine under consideration. If theological
harmony is not possible, the interpreter may need to patiently and diligently
revisit his exegesis of some or all of the relevant passages.
e second problem concerns the use of the two-age model as an
interpretive grid. To use any passage or theological system as the lens
through which the rest of Scripture is viewed tends to reinforce what the
interpreter already believes while shielding him from theological correction
and re nement.30 erefore, when the interpreter comes to a passage which
challenges (or perhaps even contradicts) his beliefs, his interpretive grid
oen silences the contribution of those passages by forcing them to conform
to his theological system. In this way, systematic theology is used to
determine exegesis rather than vice versa. No interpreter is immune to this
temptation, but the problem is magni ed when the use of an interpretive
lens is considered a valid methodology to be enthusiastically embraced
rather than a dangerous pitfall to be carefully avoided. It is one thing to
guard against the tendency to view Scripture through the lens of one’s
theological system; it is quite another to defend it as a constructive
hermeneutical approach.
For example, when the amillennialist reads Old Testament prophecy
through the lens of the two-age model, his interpretive grid does not allow
him to acknowledge the presence of sin and death at any point in the future
eschatological kingdom. erefore, when he comes to prophecies describing
the presence of sin and death in the eschatological kingdom (Ps 72:1–20; Isa
2:1–3//Mic 4:2–4; Isa 11:1–9; 65:17–25; Zech 14:16–19), he must nd some
other way to interpret those passages. Likewise, when the amillennialist
views Revelation 20 through the lens of the two-age model, his interpretive
grid does not allow him to acknowledge the exist-ence of a messianic reign
between the present age and the eternal state. erefore, when he interprets
this passage, he must do so in a way that coincides with his view of the two
ages, even though that interpretation may not be faithful to the intention of
the biblical author.

RECONSIDERING THE STARTING POINT

is raises the more fundamental question of the appropriate starting point
in formulating a biblical theology of the coming kingdom. Rather than
beginning in the Old Testament and tracing the development of the
kingdom through the progress of revelation, the amillennialist parachutes
into the middle of the New Testament and insists that the two-age passages
serve as “the starting point”31 and “interpretive grid”32 for the rest of
Scripture. From there, whether looking backward at prophetic predictions in
the Old Testament or forward to John’s prophetic visions in Revelation 20,
the amillennialist views every other passage through an interpretive lens
which appears to have been chosen arbitrarily.
To justify his use of that lens, the amillennialist insists that “ gurative
passages should be interpreted within the doctrinal boundaries set by the
literal passages.”33 In this case, the prophecies in the Old Testament and in
Revelation 20 are considered gurative and therefore must be interpreted
within the doctrinal boundaries of the two-age model, which is constructed
from “literal” passages in the New Testament. But what if these Old
Testament prophecies do indeed indicate an intermediate phase of the
coming kingdom? And what if Revelation 20 does indeed set forth a future
millennium preceding the eternal state? If so, then the interpretive lens of
the amillennialist has reinforced his erroneous understanding of the two
ages and his doctrinal boundaries have prevented much-needed theological
re nement from taking place.
e amillennial approach borders on the fallacy of appealing to selective
evidence. In this fallacy, one appeals only to evidence which supports his
view while either neglecting or failing to consider the full import of
evidence which weighs against it. As Craig Blaising notes, one of the criteria
for evaluating the plausibility of a belief system is the refusal to exclude
crucial data in the formulation of the system.34 In other words, the most
likely theological view is able to accommodate all of the relevant biblical
data, neither ignoring nor dismissing the signi cance of any key passages in
the process. e amillennial approach does not ignore relevant biblical data
entirely, but its use of the two-age interpretive grid oen diminishes the full
signi cance of those passages or forces them to conform to the eschatology
of amillennialism.
Rather than using an interpretive grid, the best way to honor the divine
authority of every passage, as well as Scripture as a whole, is to trace the
doctrine of the coming kingdom throughout biblical revelation. is means
starting in the Old Testament and progressively moving through the entirety
of Scripture—from Genesis to Revelation—allowing each passage to make
its own unique, contextual contribution as it builds upon previous
revelation. In the process, it must be recognized that later revelation oen
supplements and thereby clari es previous revelation by providing broader
context or additional detail, but it never changes the meaning of earlier
passages in the process.35 In the end, the interpreter should seek to
harmonize the exegesis of all the relevant passages—much like one seeks to
harmonize parallel accounts in the synoptic gospels—refusing to allow any
passage to silence or twist the contribution of another.

THE CLARIFYING ROLE OF REVELATION 20

With this approach, Revelation 20 is not to function as an interpretive lens
for the rest of Scripture,36 and yet—as the fullest and most comprehensive
presentation of the eschatological events surrounding the Second Coming—
it should be allowed to clarify previous revelation about the coming
kingdom.37 In doing so, Revelation 20 should not be used to reinterpret and
distort the meaning of earlier passages, but rather it should be carefully
harmonized with them so that the divine authority and progressive nature of
biblical revelation are appropriately honored.38
e primary way that Revelation 20 brings clarity to earlier revelation is
by describing a millennial reign of Christ between the present age and the
eternal state. Harmonizing this intermediate kingdom with previous
revelation does not require that truths taught in earlier passages be altered
or denied, but it does mean acknowledging the existence of a gap of time
between various eschatological events, a gap not clearly revealed in those
earlier passages. is gap of time is the “thousand years” of Revelation 20.
ere is a clear biblical precedent for this very dynamic within the
progress of divine revelation. As most biblical interpreters recognize,39
sometimes a given prophecy will predict two or more future events and
present them in such a way that it appears they will occur simultaneously,
and yet later revelation clari es that a signi cant gap of time separates
them.40 Commonly referred to as “telescoping,” “prophetic perspective,” or
“prophetic foreshortening,” this phenomenon is oen compared to seeing
two mountain peaks off in the distance—initially they appear to be right
next to each other, but a closer look reveals that they are separated by a
valley.
Most amillennialists recognize this use of prophetic perspective. As
Riddlebarger himself explains: “ere are speci c instances in the Scriptures
when a prophet foretold what appears to be a single future event, but as
history unfolded it became clear that the original prophecy referred to
multiple events.”41 According to Riddlebarger, the mountain peak analogy is
a tting way to illustrate this dynamic:

As I stand in the greater Los Angeles basin and look toward the
mountains to the northeast, I see a single mountainous ridge on the
horizon. Yet, if I were to drive directly toward the mountains, I
 would soon realize that what appeared to be a single ridge was
actually a series of hills, valleys, and mountains separated by many
miles. So it is with some Old Testament prophecies.42

For example, there is no clear evidence in the Old Testament alone that
there would be two distinct comings of the Messiah separated by a
signi cant period of time. But once later revelation in the New Testament
arrived, it became clear that what the Old Testament writers seemed to
depict as a single event must now be recognized as two events with a gap of
time separating the two.43 As a more speci c example, the events prophesied
in Isaiah 61:1–2 appear to take place at the same time, and yet later
revelation in Luke 4:16–21 clari es a gap of time between the rst-century
ful llment of Isaiah 61:1–2a and the eschatological ful llment of Isaiah
61:2b. Luke 4 does not reinterpret, diminish, or distort the original meaning
of Isaiah 61:1–2, but it does bring clarity to the timing of the events that
were prophesied.
In the same way, even though various New Testament passages appear to
teach that the Second Coming will immediately usher in the nal state of
perfection, Revelation 20 clari es that a lengthy gap of time—an
intermediate earthly kingdom of a thousand years—will separate the present
age and the eternal state. is gap is not apparent in most of the passages
cited by amillennialists, but it is implied in various Old Testament
prophecies—even being designated a lengthy period of “many days” in
Isaiah 24:21–23—and it is made explicit by the apostle John in his
description of the millennial reign of Christ. In this way, unlike the two-age
model of amillennialism, premillennialism is able to synthesize the entirety
of biblical teaching on the age to come as revealed throughout Scripture.

THE APPROACH OF THIS CRITIQUE

In addressing the question of whether the two-age model precludes an
intermediate kingdom, this critique moves progressively through Scripture.
e rst section (chapters 2–5) focuses on the Old Testament, with an
exegesis of several prophetic passages which predict a period of time that is
distinct from both the present age and the eternal state (Ps 72:1–20; Isa 2:1–
3//Mic 4:2–4; Isa 11:1–9; 65:17–25; Zech 8:4–5; 14:16–19; Isa 24:21–23). A
careful examination of these passages will demonstrate not only that the
two-age model of amillennialism has difficulty accommodating these
prophetic predictions, but also that they are best understood as providing
evidence for an intermediate kingdom between the present age and the
eternal state.
e second section (chapters 6–10) transitions to the New Testament
and responds directly to the three ways that the two-age model is used as an
argument against premillennialism. is section focuses on speci c
eschatological events which amillennialists cite as forming the dividing line
between the two ages: the resurrection and judgment of all mankind (Dan
12:2; John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15; Matt 25:31–46; 2 ess 1:6–10), the
destruction and renewal of the cosmos (2 Pet 3:10–13; Rom 8:18–23), and
the nal victory over sin and death (1 Cor 15:20–28, 50–57; Rom 8:17–23).
is examination will demonstrate that none of those arguments or New
Testament passages preclude the possibility of an intermediate kingdom, and
at least one of these passages refers to a messianic reign of Christ between
the present age and the eternal state (1 Cor 15:20–28).
e nal section of this critique (chapters 11–14) focuses on Revelation
20:1–6, commonly considered a crux interpretum in the debate over the
millennium. is passage is critical because Revelation 20 appears to present
the most obvious and formidable challenge of the two-age model by
describing an intermediate reign of Christ between the Second Coming (Rev
19) and the eternal state (Rev 21). is section will evaluate the various
arguments for the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1–6, giving
particular attention to four key exegetical issues in this passage—the timing
of Satan’s binding, the nature of the rst resurrection, the duration of the
thousand years, and the chronology of John’s visions.
If Revelation 20 clearly teaches an earthly reign of Christ between the
present age and the eternal state, there must be some way to harmonize this
intermediate kingdom with the two ages in the New Testament. is critique
will demonstrate not only that the messianic kingdom of premillennialism is
unmistakably clear in Revelation 20, but also that this kingdom is perfectly
compatible with all the passages cited by amillennialists as disproving it. In
the end, harmonizing the entirety of biblical revelation leads to the
conclusion that the thousand years in Revelation 20 describes a millennial
kingdom that will take place between the present age and the eternal state,
just as premillennialism teaches.

1 Samuel E. Waldron, e End Times Made Simple: How Could Everyone Be So Wrong
About Biblical Prophecy? (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2003), 244.
2 Geerhardus Vos, “Eschatology of the New Testament,” in Redemptive History and
Biblical Interpretation, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing, 1980), 25–29.
3 Geerhardus Vos, e Pauline Eschatology (1930; repr., Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing, 1994), 12–15.
4 E.g., William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing, 1966), 65; Anthony Hoekema, e Bible and the Future (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1979), 19–22, 185–86; Bruce K. Waltke, “Kingdom
Promises as Spiritual,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship
Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway
Books, 1988), 275; Robert B. Strimple, “An Amillennial Response to Craig A. Blaising,”
in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing, 1999), 268–69.
5 Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, expanded
ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013), 23.
6 In the past few years, at least two major works employ the two-age model as a primary
argument against premillennialism (Jonathan Menn, Biblical Eschatology, [Eugene,
OR: Resource Publications, 2013]; Dean Davis, e High King of Heaven: Discovering
the Master Keys to the Great End Time Debate [Enumclaw, WA: WinePress Publishing,
2014]), and a third work argues from this framework even though it does not use the
language of the two-age model (Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: e Amillennial
Alternative [Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2013]).
7 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 80, 103–4; Waldron, e End Times Made
Simple, 32–34; Davis, e High King of Heaven, 165.
8 In referring to the two ages, a variety of similar terminology is used. To designate the
present age, the New Testament refers to “an age” (aijw:novV) (Matt 13:39); “the age” (tou:
aijw:noV) (Matt 13:40, 49; 24:3; 28:20); “this age” (tw:/ aijw:ni touvtw/) (Rom 12:2; 1 Cor
3:18; Eph 1:21); “this age” (tou: aijw:noV touvtou) (1 Cor 1:20; 2:6 [2x], 8; 2 Cor 4:4;
Luke 20:34); “this age” (touvtw/ tw:/ aijw:ni) (Matt 12:32); “this present evil age” (tou:
aijw:noV tou: ejnestw:toV ponhrou:) (Gal 1:4); “the age of this world” (to;n aijw:na tou:
kovsmou touvtou) (Eph 2:2); “this present age” (tw:/ nu:n aijw:ni) (1 Tim 6:17; Titus
2:12); and “this time” (tw:/ kairw:/ touvtw) (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30). To designate the
coming age, the New Testament refers to “the age to come” (mevllontoV aijw:noV) (Heb
6:5); “the [age] to come” (tw:/ mevllonti) (Matt 12:32; Eph 1:21); “the age to come” (tw:/
 aijw:ni tw:/ ejrcomevnw) (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30); “that age” (tou: aijw:noV ejkeivnou)
(Luke 20:35); and “the ages to come” (toi:V aijw:sin toi:V ejpercomevnoiV) (Eph 2:7).
9 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 96.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid., 103.
12 Ibid., 80, 107, 124, 127, 130. According to Riddlebarger, even though the age to come
will not be fully experienced until the Second Coming, it was realized in principle
through the resurrection of Christ (107).
13 Ibid., 23.
14 Ibid., 98.
15 Waldron describes the two-age model as “the Bible’s own system” and the most basic
and formative issue for understanding the structure of biblical eschatology (e End
Times Made Simple, 30). Menn identi es it as “the key concept for understanding
biblical eschatology” and “a clear, consistent, and comprehensive eschatological
interpretive structure” (Biblical Eschatology, 38–39).
16 Storms, Kingdom Come, 138–43; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 234; Robert
B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed.
Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1999), 119–20; Cox,
Amillennialism Today, 65.
17 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 51, 234. According to Cox, “All passages are
equally inspired and true, but the plain must interpret the gurative” (Amillennialism
Today, 107).
18 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 234–35; Storms, Kingdom Come, 138–43;
Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 28; Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 119–20. In the
words of Riddlebarger, “e amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 attempts to
build on clear texts in the Gospels and Paul’s epistles” (A Case for Amillennialism, 235).
According to Riddlebarger, the absence of an earthly millennium in the teaching of
Jesus and Paul implies that Revelation 20 must not entail an intermediate kingdom
either (80).
19 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 234.
20 In the words of amillennialist G. K. Beale, the correct hermeneutical approach is that
“the rest of the Bible (e.g., Paul’s epistles) should be understood as the main
interpretive lens for eschatology and not any particular interpretation of Revelation
20.” is statement comes from Beale’s published endorsement at the front of Kingdom
Come by Sam Storms. For some amillennialists this approach means importing
meaning from other passages into Revelation 20—for example, Cox, who writes:
“Since [Revelation 20] itself gives no explanation of John’s meaning, its meaning must
be garnered elsewhere in the Bible” (Amillennialism Today, 65).
21 Cox, Amillennialism Today, 107; Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 120.
22 Cox, Amillennialism Today, 65.
23 Ibid., 107; emphasis added.
24 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 186.
25 Storms, Kingdom Come, 140; emphasis original. In the introduction to his discussion
of Revelation 20, Riddlebarger argues that the two-age model makes it clear that non-
glori ed saints cannot exist on the renewed earth aer the return of Jesus (A Case for
Amillennialism, 234), which rules out the possibility of a future millennium before the
details of John’s vision are even considered.
26 Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 120.
27 is assumption is held so strongly that amillennialist Sam Storms recently said, “If
Revelation 20 teaches a premillennial view … I have to abandon biblical inerrancy”
(1:15:20ff. of http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/an-
evening-of-eschatology).
28 For example, John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds. Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A
Futuristic Premillennial Primer (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2012); David L. Allen and
Steve W. Lemke, eds., e Return of Christ: A Premillennial Perspective (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 2011); Craig L. Blomberg, and Sung Wook Chung, eds. A Case
for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to “Le Behind” Eschatology (Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 2009); Craig A. Blaising, “Premillennialism,” in ree Views on
the Millennium and Beyond, 157–227; Mal Couch, ed. Dictionary of Premillennial
eology: A Practical Guide to the People, Viewpoints, and History of Prophetic Studies
(Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1996); Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L.
Townsend, eds. A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus (Chicago: Moody Press,
1992).
29 is will be demonstrated in chapters 11–14. As premillennialist Wayne Grudem
explains, the various amillennial interpretations of Revelation 20 “all have the
disadvantage of having to labor under the burden of explaining away what seems to be
a straightforward understanding of the text because they are convinced that the rest of
Scripture does not teach a future earthly millennium. But if the rest of Scripture does
not deny it (and in some places hints at it), and if this text does teach it, then it would
seem much more appropriate to accept it” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic eology: An
Introduction to Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1994], 1121).
30 Aer all, the one who looks at the world through purple-colored lenses will tend to see
only things that are purple, regardless of what color various objects may actually be.
31 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 96.
32 Ibid., 23, 98.
33 Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 28.
34 Craig A. Blaising, “Israel and Hermeneutics,” in e People, the Land, and the Future of
Israel: Israel and the Jewish People in the Plan of God, eds. Darrell L. Bock and Mitch
Glaser (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2014), 158. According to Blaising, to the
extent that a theological system does not account for relevant portions of Scripture, it
is weak at best. In his discussion of these criteria, Blaising acknowledges his
dependence on David L. Wolfe, Epistemology: e Justi cation of Belief (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982), 50–55.
35 For example, even though the Old Testament contains several indications of plurality
within God (Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Ps 45:6–7; 110:1; Isa 6:8; 48:16; 61:1; 63:10; Hos 1:2,
 7; Mal 3:1–2), the doctrine of the Trinity is not clari ed and fully revealed until the
New Testament.
36 According to amillennialist Sam Storms, most premillennialists read the New
Testament through the grid of Revelation 20: “Oen the premillennial interpretation of
Revelation 20 has become so deeply embedded in the minds of its advocates that it
borders on unconscious assumption. is makes it difficult for them to read other
portions of God’s word through anything other than premillennial spectacles”
(Kingdom Come, 142). is hermeneutical hazard must be avoided by making sure that
one’s interpretation of Revelation 20 does not distort the meaning of other passages in
the process of harmonizing the various texts.
37 is leads premillennialist Daniel Wallace to describe Revelation 20 as “the pinnacle of
revelation about the kingdom” (Daniel B. Wallace, “Is Intra-Canonical eological
Development Compatible with a High Bibliology?” accessed on August 7, 2014,
https://bible.org/article/intra-canonical-theological-development-compatible-high-
bibliology).
38 Premillennialist Millard Erickson contends that the interpreter should “weight later
developments more heavily than earlier ones” (Millard J. Erickson, Christian eology
[Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1985], 123; emphasis added), and premillennialist Daniel
Wallace insists that earlier revelation “must yield to later revelation” in the area of
eschatology (Daniel B. Wallace, “New Testament Eschatology in the Light of
Progressive Revelation,” accessed on August 7, 2014, https://bible.org/article/new-
testament-eschatology-light-progressive-revelation; emphasis added). Although this
sounds similar to the approach commended here in this critique, giving more weight
to later revelation—or insisting that earlier revelation must “yield” to later revelation—
seems to imply an actual con ict between biblical passages, consequently requiring
that one passage be granted more authority than others, an approach that must be
rejected. In a similar way, premillennialist George Eldon Ladd’s insistence that all other
considerations be “subservient” to the exegesis of Revelation 20 (George Eldon Ladd,
Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1952], 183) seems to imply that the meaning of one passage should be trumped by the
meaning of another. is approach appears to deny the equal authority of all Scripture
and therefore should likewise be rejected.
39 See Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 3rd ed.
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2003), 200; Walter C. Kaiser and Moisés Silva,
An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: e Search for Meaning (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing, 1994), 143–44; Robert L. Plummer, 40 Questions About
Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2010), 210;
William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical
Interpretation (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 1993), 304–5; Henry A. Virkler and
Karelynne Gerber Ayayo, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical
Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 169–70; Walter C.
Kaiser, Jr., e Use of the Old Testament in the New (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock
 Publishers, 1985), 63–68; J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God’s Word: A
Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing, 2001), 370–71; Kenneth L. Barker, “e Scope and Center of
Old and New Testament eology,” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: e
Search for De nition, eds. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing, 1992), 324–25; George Eldon Ladd, e Presence of the Future:
e Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1974), 64–65.
40 See, for example, Isa 9:6–7; 40:1–5; 61:1–2 (cf. Luke 4:16–21); Jer 29:10–14; Zech 9:9–
10; and Joel 2:28–32.
41 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 71.
42 Ibid.
43 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 89.
 PART 1

e Intermediate
Kingdom
in the
Old Testament
 Chapter 2

e Intermediate Kingdom
in the Psalms and Prophets

INTRODUCTION

In the two-age model of amillennialism, there is no room for the

intermediate kingdom of premillennialism. As the Old Testament looks
ahead to the coming kingdom, however, several prophetic passages seem to
predict a period of time that is distinct from both the present age and the
eternal state.1 Because these passages describe conditions which do not t in
either time period, they appear to “indicate some future stage in the history
of redemption which is far greater than the present church age but which
still does not see the removal of all sin and rebellion and death from the
earth.”2
As premillennialist Robert L. Saucy notes, the conditions presented in
these Old Testament passages reveal “a tension in the prophetic picture
between a millennial restoration that is not yet complete and the nal
perfection of the eternal state.”3 On one hand, the eschatological kingdom is
characterized by peace, righteousness, eternal blessing, and immortality; but
on the other hand, some prophetic passages include conditions of sin,
rebellion, and human death.4 For this reason, “it is certainly possible that
these conditions might be ful lled in a historical phase of the kingdom prior
to the nal ful llment” of the eternal state.5
 Because the prophetic picture includes a portrayal of the Messiah
reigning in a yet imperfect world,6 premillennialists point to these passages
as Old Testament evidence for the necessity of an intermediate kingdom.7
According to this argument, the best way to account for all the biblical data
and to resolve the aforementioned tension in the prophetic picture is to
recognize the existence of two phases of the coming kingdom—the
millennium (Rev 20) and the eternal state (Rev 21–22).8 In contrast, the
two-age model of amillennialism has difficulty accommodating those Old
Testament passages which indicate an intermediate kingdom.
ese prophetic passages include Psalm 72:1–20, Isaiah 2:1–3 // Micah
4:2–4, Isaiah 11:1–9, Isaiah 65:17–25, Zechariah 8:4–5, Zechariah 14:16–19,
and Isaiah 24:21–23. In chapters 2–5 of this book, each of these passages will
be considered to determine if the Old Testament provides clear evidence of
an intermediate kingdom consistent with the eschatology of
premillennialism.

THE INTERMEDIATE KINGDOM IN PSALM 72:1–20

In Psalm 72, Solomon looks beyond his own experience as king over Israel
to speak of the glories of the reign of the coming Messiah.9 is future
kingdom will consist of the righteous and peaceful reign of Christ over the
entirety of the world (vv. 2–4, 7, 12), extending “from sea to sea” and “to the
ends of the earth” (v. 8). During this coming reign of Messiah—in which “all
kings bow down before him” and “all nations serve him” (v. 11; cf. v. 15)—all
the peoples of the earth will be blessed (vv. 7, 16–17), and the whole world
will be lled with His glory (v. 19). e coming kingdom of Psalm 72 clearly
extends not only beyond the reign of Solomon, but also beyond anything
experienced in the present age.
At the same time, Solomon’s description of this future reign of Messiah
also includes conditions that clearly fall short of the eternal state. In the
coming kingdom of Psalm 72, the Messiah will defend and vindicate the
afflicted (vv. 2, 4); save the children of the needy (v. 4); crush the oppressor
(v. 4); subdue His enemies (v. 9); deliver the needy and afflicted in response
to their cries for help (v. 12); have compassion on the poor (v. 13); and
deliver the oppressed and the victims of violence (vv. 13b–14). e existence
of the afflicted, needy, oppressed, and poor—along with the enemies of God
who mistreat those who are victimized—is incompatible with the nal
consummation of the nal state.
As premillennialist Wayne Grudem writes, “All of this speaks of an age
far different from the present age but short of the eternal state in which there
is no more sin or suffering.”10 Because this description in Psalm 72 cannot
be harmonized either with our present world or with the nal state of sinless
immortality, it must refer to a future reign of Messiah between the present
age and the eternal state.11 In this intermediate kingdom, Christ will reign in
peace and righteousness—bringing an abundance of blessing to the entire
earth—and yet the presence of sin will continue to prevail, leaving some in
need of deliverance. Affirming the existence of an intermediate kingdom is
the only way to accommodate all that Psalm 72 says about this future reign
of Messiah.12

THE INTERMEDIATE KINGDOM IN ISAIAH 2:2–4 // MICAH

4:1–3
In Isaiah 2:2–4 and Micah 4:1–3, the prophets describe the worldwide
kingdom that God will establish in the last days:

Now it will come about that in the last days the mountain of the
house of the Lord will be established as the chief of the mountains,
and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it.
And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the
mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may
teach us concerning His ways and that we may walk in His paths.”
For the law will go forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from
Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, and will render
decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into
plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not li
up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war (Isa
2:2–4).

And it will come about in the last days that the mountain of the
house of the Lord will be established as the chief of the mountains. It
 will be raised above the hills, and the peoples will stream to it. Many
nations will come and say, “Come and let us go up to the mountain
of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob, that He may teach
us about His ways and that we may walk in His paths.” For from
Zion will go forth the law, even the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
And He will judge between many peoples and render decisions for
mighty, distant nations. en they will hammer their swords into
plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not li
up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war (Mic
4:1–3).

According to these virtually identical prophecies,13 Mount Zion will

tower in prominence above all others, and the nations of the world will
stream to Jerusalem to learn to walk in the ways of Yahweh. e word of the
Lord will go forth as the Messiah rules from Jerusalem, judging between the
nations of the world and rendering decisions for the people. As a result of
this righteous reign of the Messiah, the nations will live in peace, and never
again will they prepare for war. According to premillennialists, these
prophecies describe an intermediate kingdom in which Jesus will reign from
Jerusalem between the present age and the eternal state.
In contrast to the premillennial view, some amillennialists believe that
these prophecies are being ful lled in the present age. According to Kim
Riddlebarger, Hebrews 12:18–24 indicates that Isaiah 2:2–4 and Micah 4:1–3
have already been ful lled in the person and work of Jesus Christ and
therefore that the conditions they describe are a present reality.14
Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple takes the same view, asserting that the
prophetic description of the nations streaming to Jerusalem in Isaiah 2:3 and
Micah 4:2 “is being ful lled now as men and women of every tribe on the
face of the earth call upon the name of Zion’s King and become citizens of
‘the Jerusalem that is above,’ the mother of all who are in Christ by faith.”15
But as Saucy observes, a straightforward reading of Isaiah 2 and Micah 4
exposes the obvious difficulties with this view:

Are the nations at present streaming to the church to learn the ways
of God and walk in his paths? Is Christ really “settling disputes”
today for many peoples with the result that the nations are turning
 their weapons into plowshares? It is plain that these questions cannot
be answered positively except by an unnatural bending of the text—a
bending that would have been quite foreign to the original readers.16

e most glaring problem with the amillennial view, which sees a

present-day ful llment of these passages, is its prediction of international
harmony among the nations of the world. According to these prophecies,
because of the kingdom reign of Messiah—and more speci cally, because of
the judgments and decisions rendered by Him as He rules from Jerusalem
(Isa 2:3; Mic 4:2)—the nations of the world will live in peace, no longer
having need of military weapons, for never again will they wage war against
one another (Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3).17 It is impossible to argue that this kind of
international harmony among the nations exists as a present reality, and
therefore Isaiah 2:2–4 and Micah 4:1–3 cannot be understood as being
ful lled in the current age.18
Other amillennialists believe that Isaiah 2:2–4 and Micah 4:1–3 will be
ful lled in the eternal state. According to Anthony Hoekema, these
prophecies portray “the joyful participation of all nations in the worship of
the one true God,” providing “an inspiring picture, not of the millennial
reign, but of conditions on the new earth.”19 But this view fails to account
for at least two important details which are incompatible with the eternal
state of the new heavens and earth.
First, according to these prophecies, during this righteous and peaceful
reign of Messiah, the nations of the world will stream to the city of
Jerusalem to be taught the ways of God so they might walk in His paths.20
As Saucy notes, this implies “an imperfection that still requires what might
be called the divine saving action of sancti cation.”21 Because neither
imperfection nor the consequent need for sancti cation will exist in the
eternal state, this prophetic picture is inconsistent with the conditions of
perfection that will characterize the new heavens and new earth.
Second, according to Isaiah and Micah, as the Messiah reigns from
Jerusalem He will “judge between the nations” and “render decisions for
many peoples” (Isa 2:4; cf. Mic 4:3).22 is need for the Lord to render
judgments and settle disputes among the people of the nations is clear
evidence that sin will still be present during this time.23 erefore, “while
this activity obviously belongs to the time of the Messiah’s reign, it cannot
yet be assigned to the perfected state of eternity” and must point instead “to
what has been called a millennial reign of the Messiah before the eternal
conditions have commenced.”24
As premillennialist John H. Sailhamer concludes:

e attempt of amillennial scholars … to nd a literal ful llment of

Isaiah’s visions in an earthly eternal state does not do full justice to
the content of the visions themselves. ough commendable for its
focus on the physical dimensions of Isaiah’s visions, the
interpretation of the visions as a description of the eternal state
overlooks the manifest “this-worldly” scope of the prophecies
themselves.25

Rather than nding their ful llment in the present age or the eternal
state, then, Isaiah 2:2–4 and Micah 4:1–3 must point ahead to an
intermediate kingdom that will take place between the two. During this
earthly messianic reign, the nations will ock to Jerusalem to worship the
Lord and learn His ways, living in harmony as the Messiah renders
judgment and settles disputes that arise among them. Sin will continue in
the messianic kingdom, but the justice of the Lord will prevail and the
nations of the world will live together in peace.26

THE INTERMEDIATE KINGDOM IN ISAIAH 11:1–9

In Isaiah 11:1–9, the prophet Isaiah sets forth the righteous and peaceful
reign of the Messiah. is description of the coming kingdom “clearly
speaks of a momentous renewal of nature that takes us far beyond the
present age, a time in which ‘the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the
LORD as the waters cover the sea’ (v. 9).”27 Not only will the Messiah reign
with justice (vv. 3–5), but “the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard
will lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the young lion and the
fatling together; and a little boy will lead them” (v. 6). e coming reign of
Messiah will indeed be characterized by peace and righteousness.
 But Isaiah 11 also indicates that certain aspects of this kingdom rule will
be coercive, and even punitive.28 According to verse 4, as the Messiah reigns
over this coming kingdom, He will judge the poor with righteousness (v. 4a),
defend the afflicted with fairness (v. 4b), strike the earth with the rod of His
mouth (v. 4c), and slay the wicked with the breath of His lips (v. 4d). is
need for the Messiah to defend the poor and afflicted and to bring punitive
judgment upon the wicked “indicates the presence of rebellious activity not
in keeping with the eternal kingdom order in which sin in absent.”29
Because the coming kingdom of Isaiah 11 exceeds what is currently
manifest in the current age—and because the presence of the poor, the
afflicted, and the wicked are incompatible with the eternal state—
premillennialists point to this passage as evidence of an intermediate
kingdom between the two.30 During this reign between the present age and
the eternal state, Jesus will rule over a righteous and peaceful kingdom, and
yet some degree of rebellion will continue, resulting in “a certain amount of
tension between the King and the nations, a tension which is easily
suppressed.”31 Affirming the existence of an intermediate kingdom is the
best way to account for the entirety of Isaiah 11.
According to amillennialist Sam Storms, the divine judgment in Isaiah
11:4 “could easily be what the reigning Lord Jesus exercises throughout the
course of the present church age as well as the judgment that he will in ict at
the time of his second coming.”32 Unfortunately, the only evidence Storms
provides for this view is that Isaiah 11:4 “falls within a larger context that
describes the characteristics of the coming Messiah, a passage that Jesus
himself cites and applies to his own person and work in the rst century (see
Luke 4:16ff.)!”33 But in Luke 4:18–19, the prophecy which Jesus cites as
being ful lled in the ministry of His rst coming is Isaiah 61:1–2a, not
Isaiah 11:4. e fact that Jesus applies Isaiah 61:1–2a to His rst-century
ministry provides no evidence whatsoever that Isaiah 11:4 is ful lled in the
present age.
According to amillennialist Dean Davis, the description of Messiah
coming to the aid of the poor and afflicted in Isaiah 11:4a is ful lled in the
present age as He grants eternal life to all who recognize their poverty of
spirit, and the slaying of the wicked in Isaiah 11:4b will be ful lled at the
Second Coming when He judges the world in righteousness.34 is view that
the judgment in verse 4 coincides with the Second Coming is strengthened
by the use of similar terminology in 2 essalonians 2:8 and Revelation
19:15a, but it simply does not t the immediate context of Isaiah 11:

1. e Divine Endowment of the Messiah (vv. 1–3a)

2. e Righteous Rule of the Messiah (vv. 3b–5)
3. e Peaceful Conditions of the Kingdom (vv. 6–9)
4. e Prerequisite Gathering of the Nations (vv. 10–16)

In Isaiah 11:3b–5, the prophet portrays the reign of the Messiah in a series of
descriptions of what He will do as He rules over His kingdom with justice
and righteousness:

He will not judge by what His eyes see, nor make a decision by what
His ears hear; but with righteousness He will judge the poor, and
decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; and He will strike
the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips
He will slay the wicked. Also righteousness will be the belt about His
loins, and faithfulness the belt about His waist (Isa 11:3b–5).

In light of the cohesive ow of thought in Isaiah 11 in general—and

within verses 3b–5 in particular—it is unwarranted to insist on such a
radical break in verse 4 in which the rst half of the verse describes the
Messiah’s activity throughout the present age and the second half describes
His judgment of the wicked at the Second Coming. For this reason, “While
it is possible that the reference to the rod in Isaiah 11:4 refers to the
de nitive nal judgment, more likely it is to be understood as a general
feature within the overall description of the messianic reign.”35 In other
words, the judgment in Isaiah 11:4 “does not consist of simply a brief nal
court, but refers to the nature of the Messiah’s rule,”36 a rule best indenti ed
as an intermediate kingdom between the present age and eternal state.

1 Michael J. Vlach, “e Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” MSJ 23, no. 2 (Fall
2012): 227, 233–40.
2 Wayne Grudem, Systematic eology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1994), 1127.
3 Robert L. Saucy, e Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: e Interface Between
Dispensational and Non-Dispensational eology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 1993), 237–38.
4 Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1993), 274.
5 Ibid. Elsewhere Blaising is more dogmatic about the implications of this tension: “A
number of prophecies while highlighting conditions of blessedness in the future
kingdom also describe conditions of sin and death that can only precede the nal
judgment. is can be true only if the future, eschatological kingdom is rst
established some time before the nal judgment; the nal judgment then will separate
two phases of that kingdom, one temporary, the other eternal” (Craig A. Blaising, “e
Kingdom that Comes with Jesus: Premillennialism and the Harmony of Scripture,” in
e Return of Christ: A Premillennial Perspective, eds. David L. Allen and Steve W.
Lemke [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2011], 145).
6 Robert L. Saucy, “Response to Understanding Dispensationalists, by Vern S. Poythress,”
GTJ 10, no. 2 (Fall 1989): 144. According to Saucy, this lack of perfection is “indicated
by the presence of continuing sin and the corresponding presence of the saving activity
of God” (Progressive Dispensationalism, 238).
7 Craig A. Blaising, “Premillennialism,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond,
ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing), 200–4; Vlach, “e
Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” 233–40; Grudem, Systematic eology, 1127–
30; Blaising, “e Kingdom that Comes with Jesus,” 143–45; Saucy, Progressive
Dispensationalism, 237–41; Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 274–76.
According to Kenneth Kantzer, the 20th-century shi toward premillennialism in
evangelical scholarship was due in part to this realization that “much of what the Old
Testament prophets predicted for the ‘end times’ could not legitimately be applied to
heaven” (Kenneth S. Kantzer, “Foreword,” in A Case for Premillennialism: A New
Consensus, eds. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend [Chicago: Moody Press,
1992], 8).
8 Saucy, “Response to Understanding Dispensationalists,” 140; Blaising, “e Kingdom
that Comes with Jesus,” 145.
9 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., e Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 1995), 133–35.
10 Grudem, Systematic eology, 1129. Saucy describes it as “a picture of universal
blessing for the nations, but not yet perfection” (Progressive Dispensationalism, 239).
11 Grudem, Systematic eology, 1129; Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 239; Michael
J. Vlach, “Is Revelation 20 the Only Supporting Text for Premillennialism?,” accessed
on April 4, 2014, http://theologicalstudies.org/ les/resources/Rev_20_an_d_OT.pdf.
12 e strongest amillennial response to this argument is that the messianic reign
predicted in Psalm 72 will be partially ful lled in the present age and partially ful lled
in the eternal state (e.g., Dean Davis, e High King of Heaven: Discovering the Master
Keys to the Great End Time Debate [Enumclaw, WA: WinePress Publishing, 2014],
284–85). Although this view is difficult to disprove de nitively because of the
 possibility of prophetic con ation, it appears to separate what is joined together as a
single reign in Psalm 72. e straightforward reading of the psalm portrays the various
conditions as simultaneously descriptive of the Messiah’s reign and therefore indicative
of an intermediate kingdom.
13 As John Sailhamer notes, there are only slight differences between the two prophecies:
“Micah does not have the formal introduction of Isa 2:1, but rather the oracle follows
immediately on the description of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in Mic 3:12.
Also, both oracles have different conclusions. Isaiah’s closes with a call of exhortation
to the house of Jacob to follow the Torah like the nations in the last days, while Micah’s
ends with a contrast between the nations who follow their own gods and Israel who
worships only the Lord. Micah also contains an additional line describing the time of
peace, Micah 4:4” (John H. Sailhamer, “Evidence from Isaiah 2,” in A Case for
Premillennialism: A New Consensus, eds. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend
[Chicago: Moody Press, 1992], 84–85).
14 Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, expanded
ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013), 87–89. Similarly, amillennialist E. J. Young
believes these prophecies began their ful llment during the present age and will reach
their nal realization at the Second Coming. According to Young, this passage “is
difficult to interpret,” and his interpretation of it “has difficulties, but it is all that one
can do if he would be faithful to the language of the Bible” (Edward J. Young, e Book
of Isaiah, [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1965], 1:108–9).
15 Robert B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond,
ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing), 93; emphasis original.
Davis explains the present-day ful llment of these prophecies in a similar way: “Even
now, through the faithful preaching of the Gospel, many nations of new believers are
ascending this Mountain, there to worship the God of Jacob. Even now—through
Christ—the High Prophet of Heaven—God is teaching his people his ways. Even now,
the instruction of the Gospel is going forth from Zion; even now the Word of the
LORD is going forth from the Jerusalem above, of which the Church on earth is a
member in good (heavenly) standing (Gal. 4:26, Heb. 12:22)” (e High King of
Heaven, 251). According to Davis, however, “on a second reading of this prophecy, we
may just as easily view it as being ful lled … in the new heavens and the new earth” for
“the same immutable blessings of the Eternal Covenant belong to God’s people in both
stages of the Kingdom.”
16 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 239. According to Sailhamer, several features of
Isa 2:2–4 suggest that this vision was meant to be taken literally and physically, that is,
“that Isaiah is here looking forward to the physical restoration of Jerusalem and reign
of the Messiah on earth in the ‘last days’” (“Evidence from Isaiah 2,” 95). Sailhamer
argues that the literal/physical meaning of this passage is speci cally indicated by its
literary genre, its literary context, and its literary type (95–101).
17 is understanding of Isa 2:4 and Mic 4:3 does not result from a hyper-literalistic
interpretation illegitimately imposed upon the text. Instead it arises from the
recognition that these verses use symbolic language—hammering swords into
 plowshares and spears into pruning hooks—to predict a literal harmony among the
literal nations of the world. In fact, amillennialist Sam Storms takes the same approach
to these verses. Aer explaining how Isa 2:4 and Mic 4:3 contain clear examples of
gurative language in Old Testament prophecy, Storms concludes that the meaning of
this symbolic lanuage is that “God will restore order to the earth in the sense that
political peace among all nations and the complete absence of military con ict will
come to pass” (Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: e Amillennial Alternative [Ross-shire,
Scotland: Mentor, 2013], 32). is is undoubtedly the meaning of swords being
hammered into plowshares because of how this symbolic language is immediately
explained in both passages as nations no longer waging war against each other. At the
same time, Storms fails to comment on how or when he believes this prediction of
international harmony will be ful lled.
18 Michael Vlach notes three additional problems with this view. First, Isa 2:1 indicates
that this oracle concerns Judah and Jerusalem, and therefore “any view that divorces
the Jewish geographical element from the prophecy is violating the context of the
passage.” Second, in response to Riddlebarger’s argument from Heb 12:18–24,
Christians today are positionally related to a city that is yet to come (Heb 13:4), but
this positional relationship to the coming New Jerusalem does not prove that Isa 2:2–4
is ful lled today. ird, the spiritualized interpretation of Isaiah 2 presents an
imbalanced and unfair understanding of the blessing/curse motif with regard to the
nation of Israel by arguing for the literal ful llment of the curses but not the blessings
(Michael J. Vlach, “Isaiah and International Harmony Among the Nations [Part 2]:
Does the Church Ful ll Isaiah 2?,” accessed on April 4, 2014,
http://www.mikevlach.com/blog/2013/11/Isaiah-and-International-Harmony-Among-
the-Nations-Part-2-Does-the-Church-Ful ll-Isaiah-2-). Even some amillennialists see
the weakness of this view that Isa 2:2–4 and Mic 4:1–3 are ful lled in the church
during the present age—for example, Anthony Hoekema, who describes it as “an
impoverishment of the meaning of these passages” (Anthony Hoekema, e Bible and
the Future [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 205–6). As Sailhamer notes, “Taken at
face value Isaiah’s visions appear to speak of a literal ful llment in Jerusalem itself and
thus are not easily pressed into a reference to the establishment of the church”
(“Evidence from Isaiah 2,” 101).
19 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 205. According to Hoekema, “All too oen,
unfortunately, amillennial exegetes fail to keep biblical teaching on the new earth in
mind when interpreting Old Testament prophecy” (205–6).
20 As Sailhamer observes, “e pilgrimage of Gentiles into Jerusalem, where they receive
God’s law, recalls Israel’s own historical experiences, including their initial pilgrimage
to Mount Sinai to receive God’s Torah and their yearly journeys to Jerusalem. What
had been Israel’s experience in the past would one day be that of all the nations”
(“Evidence from Isaiah 2,” 90). Sailhamer argues effectively that the “law” which goes
forth from Zion in Isa 2:3 refers not to the Mosaic Law but to the New Covenant law
mentioned in passages like Jer 31:33 and Ezek 36:27 (91).
21 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 238.
22 As Leslie Allen explains: “Jerusalem was to become the international court whose
ndings would be accepted without quibble. Disputes would be settled amicably, for
such would be Yahweh’s prestige that even great nations in far- ung corners of the
world would acknowledge his equity” (Leslie C. Allen, e Books of Joel, Obadiah,
Jonah, and Micah, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1976], 325). Isa 2:4
and Mic 4:3 indicate that these judgments and decisions from the Lord will result in
harmony among the nations. As Vlach writes, “ese nations, which appear to
disagree at times or have con icts of interests, will accept His announcements
peacefully without taking matters into their own hands” (Michael J. Vlach,
“International Harmony Under the Messiah According to Isaiah 2:1–4: Part 1,”
accessed on April 4, 2014, http://www.mikevlach.com/blog/2013/11/International-
Harmony-under-the-Messiah-According-to-Isaiah-2-1-4-Part-1).
23 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 234, 238. Here in Isa 2:4 and Mic 4:3, the verb
translated “render decisions” ( ) refers to settling quarrels or judiciously arbitrating
disputes among people (William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon
of the Old Testament: Based upon the Lexical Work of Ludwig Koehler and Walter
Baumgartner [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1972], 134; Ludwig Koehler and
Walter Baumgartner, HALOT, rev. Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm,
trans. and ed. under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson [Leiden, e Netherlands:
Brill, 1994–2000], 1:410; John E. Hartley, “ ,” in NIDOTTE, ed. Willem A.
VanGemeren [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1997], 2:443), and the verb
“judge” ( ) means to settle disputes among people (Holladay, A Concise Hebrew
and Aramaic Lexicon, 380; Koehler and Baumgartner, HALOT, 2:1623; Richard
Schultz, “ ” in NIDOTTE, 4:215).
24 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 238. Vlach notes two additional problems with
this view. First, Isa 9:6–7 indicates that the kingdom of Isaiah is directly related to the
Davidic reign of the Son of David, but this view separates the ful llment of Isa 2:2–4
from the Davidic reign of Jesus. Second, the kingdom promises of Isaiah 2 involve the
restoration of national Israel with a unique role to the nations of the world, but
according to this view Israel’s role during the ful llment of Isaiah 2 is either “non-
existent or transcended” (“Isaiah and International Harmony [Part 2]”).
25 Sailhamer, “Evidence from Isaiah 2,” 101.
26 According to amillennialist Anthony Hoekema, the description in Isa 2:4 that “never
again will they learn war” does not t with the intermediate kingdom of
premillennialism because of the nal war that is waged in Rev 20:7–9 (e Bible and
the Future, 205). Hoekema sees this promise as evidence that Isaiah’s prophecy will be
ful lled in the new heavens and earth. is is the strongest argument against the
premillennial interpretation of Isa 2:2–4 and Mic 4:1–3. Perhaps the best response that
can be offered is that Isa 2:4 and Mic 4:3 have speci c reference to the absence of war
between the nations of the world during the millennial kingdom of Rev 20:1–6,
whereas the battle of Rev 20:7–9 consists of Satan deceiving the nations of the world to
attack Jesus and His saints aer the thousand years are completed.
27 Grudem, Systematic eology, 1128.
28 Blaising, “e Kingdom that Comes with Jesus,” 158–59.
29 Ibid., 144. Amillennialists Anthony Hoekema and Corenelis Venema insist that Isa
11:6–10 should not be spiritualized in a non-earthly sense and therefore see it being
ful lled in the future state of the new heavens and earth rather than in heaven during
the present age (Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 203; Cornelis P. Venema, e
Promise of the Future [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2000], 292). But neither Hoekema
nor Venema comment on the meaning of verse 4 or its signi cance for the timing of
the ful llment of Isaiah 11.
30 Blaising, “e Kingdom that Comes with Jesus,” 143–44, 158–59; Saucy, Progressive
Dispensationalism, 239; Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 202–3; Grudem, Systematic
eology, 1128; Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 274. According to
Hoekema, the words in Isa 11:9—“the earth will be full of the knowledge of the
Lord”—“are not an accurate description of the millennium, for during the millennium
there will be those who do not know or love the Lord” (e Bible the Future, 203; also
see Davis, e High King of Heaven, 289). But the earth being full of the knowledge of
the Lord need not imply that every single person in the world knows and loves the
Lord.
31 Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 274.
32 Storms, Kingdom Come, 169.
33 Ibid.
34 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 288–89. is ts with Davis’s overall interpretation of
Isa 11:1–9 in which verses 1–4a refer to the present age, verses 4b–5 refer to the
Second Coming, and verses 6–9 refer to the eternal state.
35 Blaising, “e Kingdom that Comes with Jesus,” 144.
36 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 239.
 Chapter 3

e Intermediate Kingdom
in Isaiah 65:17–25

INTRODUCTION

One of the most difficult prophetic passages for the two-age model of
amillennialism is Isaiah 65:17–25. In this prophecy, Yahweh looks ahead to
the coming eschatological kingdom and describes a time of joy and
prosperity when He will bless His people and make all things new:

“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former
things will not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and
rejoice forever in what I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem for
rejoicing and her people for gladness. I will also rejoice in Jerusalem
and be glad in My people; and there will no longer be heard in her
the voice of weeping and the sound of crying. No longer will there be
in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not
live out his days; for the youth will die at the age of one hundred and
the one who does not reach the age of one hundred will be thought
accursed. ey will build houses and inhabit them; they will also
plant vineyards and eat their fruit. ey will not build and another
inhabit, they will not plant and another eat; for as the lifetime of a
tree, so will be the days of My people, and My chosen ones will wear
out the work of their hands. ey will not labor in vain, or bear
 children for calamity; for they are the offspring of those blessed by
the Lord, and their descendants with them. It will also come to pass
that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I
will hear. e wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will
eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s food. ey will do
no evil or harm in all My holy mountain,” says the Lord (Isa 65:17–
25).

In this description of the new heavens and new earth, verse 20 promises
longevity of life to those who inhabit the coming kingdom: “No longer will
there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not
live out his days; for the youth will die at the age of one hundred and the one
who does not reach the age of one hundred will be thought accursed” (Isa
65:20). In this verse, the longevity-of-life characteristic of the kingdom is
illustrated in two ways. First, the death of newborn infants will no longer be
a possibility (v. 20a). e cultural context of Isaiah’s prophecy highlights the
signi cance of this promise:

In most ancient Near Eastern societies, the medical profession was

able to offer only very limited assistance when people were sick or
injured. If there was any trouble in giving childbirth, there was little
that could be done to save a premature child. Once born, many
children still died of diseases that today are easily cured by basic
modern medicines. But at that time an infected wound, a bowel
blockage, diarrhea, pneumonia, cold, appendicitis, or a broken bone
could lead to death.1

In the coming kingdom, however, the constant threat of infant death—so

common in ancient Israel—will not be a concern, because “no longer will
there be in it an infant who lives but a few days” (Isa 65:20a).
Second, neither will the old man fail to “live out his days, for the youth
will die at the age of one hundred and the one who does not reach the age of
one hundred will be thought accursed” (Isa 65:20b). In other words, life will
be so long and death so unexpected that anyone who dies at age 100 will be
regarded a youth, and anyone who dies earlier will be considered accursed.2
According to Isaiah 65:20, then, no one will experience an untimely or
premature death, for just as in the days of Adam and his descendants, the
normal lifespan will consist of hundreds of years (Gen 5).3 Death will
continue to exist, but its power over mankind will be greatly weakened.4
is promise of longevity of life is reinforced in verse 22: “For as the
lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people, and My chosen ones will
wear out the work of their hands” (Isa 65:22b). With the most prominent
trees in that culture reaching hundreds of years in age,5 the promise of Isaiah
65:22 con rms that the lifespan of God’s people in the coming kingdom will
indeed far outlast what is currently experienced in the present age. No
longer will people die either in infancy or even at the age of 100—lest they
be considered accursed—for the inhabitants of the kingdom will enjoy
longevity of life.

THE PREMILLENNIAL ARGUMENT FROM ISAIAH 65:17–25

Because the average human life span is currently 70–80 years (Ps 90:10; cf.
Gen 6:3), the conditions described in Isaiah 65:20 and 22 cannot be ful lled
in the present age.6 At the same time, however, the ongoing presence of
physical death in these verses also renders them incompatible with the
eternal state, where sin and death will no longer exist (Isa 25:8; Rev 21:4;
22:3).7 e impossibility of locating the ful llment of Isaiah 65:20 in either
the present age or the eternal state points to the existence of an intermediate
kingdom in which sin and death still persist, and yet the longevity of life far
exceeds current conditions.8 Premillennialists identify this intermediate
kingdom with the thousand-year reign of Christ in Revelation 20, also
known as the millennial kingdom. As Geoffrey Grogan writes, “When a
promise is made of conditions that fall short of perfection—as, for instance,
when life is lengthened but death is not abolished (65:20)—this does not
apply to the perfected church but is best related to millennial conditions.”9
In this way, Isaiah 65:20 provides evidence for an intermediate kingdom
between the present age and the eternal state.

THE AMILLENNIAL VIEW OF ISAIAH 65:17–25

Many amillennialists recognize the problem that this passage seems to
present for their view. Samuel Waldron refers to Isaiah 65:17–25 as
“problematic;”10 Cornelis Venema describes it as “a difficult passage”11 and
“difficult to interpret;”12 Sam Storms acknowledges that it portrays a period
of time “in which death appears to be present”13 and says that it poses a
problem “for all Christians, regardless of their millennial beliefs;”14 and
Anthony Hoekema simply refers to it as “a difficult text to interpret.”15
Venema even concedes that the premillennial view of Isaiah 65:17–25 “has
some plausibility, because verse 20 describes a time when infants will not be
cut off aer having lived only a few days, and when those who are older will
not die prematurely.”16 In a similar way, Waldron acknowledges that Isaiah
65:20–23 seems “to apply the language of ‘a new heaven and a new earth’ to a
period in which death is still a reality. It speaks of great longevity and
remarkable freedom from early death for the people of God, but this
language seems to assume that in the end death is still a reality.”17
Despite the difficulty of verse 20, most amillennialists believe that Isaiah
65:17–25 refers exclusively to the eternal state.18 A number of arguments
have been made to support this interpretation. First, because all the other
biblical uses of the phrase “new heavens and new earth” refer to the eternal
state (Isa 66:22–24; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1), the new heavens and new earth in
Isaiah 65 must refer to the eternal state as well.19 According to Robert
Strimple, “Peter (in 2 Peter 3:13) and John (in Rev. 21:1) give us the
authoritative apostolic interpretation of Isaiah’s vision of the new heavens
and the new earth (Isa. 65:17 and 66:22) as the eternal dwelling place of
God’s people.”20 For this reason, it is said, the entirety of Isaiah 65:17–25—
including verse 20—must portray the eternal state in which physical death
no longer exists.
Second, according to amillennialists, the statement in Isaiah 65:19—that
there will no longer be any weeping and crying—indicates that Isaiah 65:17–
25 must refer to the eternal state.21 is is said to be obvious for two reasons:
(a) the promise to wipe away all tears is connected to the abolishment of
death in Isaiah 25:8,22 and (b) the very language of Isaiah 65:19 is used in
Revelation 21:4 to designate the eternal state.23 erefore, Isaiah 65:17–25
must describe the perfection of the eternal state where all weeping and
crying have ceased and death no longer exists.24
ird, according to amillennialists, the conditions described in Isaiah 65
are clearly permanent and eternal, rather than lasting only for a
millennium.25 In verse 17b, the Lord says that “the former things will not be
remembered or come to mind,” and He exhorts His people in verse 18 to
rejoice “forever” in the new heavens and new earth, not just for a thousand
years.26 As Hoekema writes, “Isaiah is not speaking here about a new
existence which will last no longer than a thousand years, but about an
everlasting blessedness,”27 the everlasting blessedness of the eternal state.
Fourth, according to amillennialists, the perfection of the conditions
described in Isaiah 65:25 contradict the premillennial interpretation of this
passage.28 In verse 25, the Lord says: “e wolf and the lamb will graze
together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s
food. ey will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain.” According to
Waldron, “Only the eternal state brings the end of all evil and harm in God’s
holy mountain.”29 erefore, Isaiah 65:17–25 must have reference to
eternity.30
But what about the implication in Isaiah 65:20 that death will continue
in the new heavens and new earth? How do amillennialists explain this
apparent incongruity? Simply stated, most amillennialists believe that Isaiah
65:20 poetically describes the longevity of life to be enjoyed in the new
heavens and earth, without actually implying that death will still exist at this
time.31 According to Waldron, Isaiah 65:20 speaks “of great longevity and
the absence of premature death.”32 Hoekema says it guratively portrays “the
fact that the inhabitants of the new earth will live incalculably long lives.”33
And Venema sees it as an affirmation of “the incalculably long lives that the
inhabitants of the new earth will live.”34
For the amillennialist, incalculably long life ultimately means everlasting
35
life. In other words, the longevity of life promised in Isaiah 65:20 is seen as
a poetic way to portray the eternal state in which the people of God are no
longer subject to physical death because its power over the whole of life,
from infancy to old age, has been destroyed (cf. Isa 25:8; Rev 21:1–4).36
erefore, rather than affirming the existence of physical death in the new
heavens and new earth, Isaiah 65:20 is viewed as a promise that the people
of God will live forever in “a world where all the greatest sorrows and
deepest tragedies of our world are unknown.”37
To support this interpretation, amillennialists oen appeal to what they
see as a foundational principle for interpreting Old Testament prophetic
literature.38 According to this principle, “Prophecy can only depict the
future in terms which make sense to its present.”39 In other words, when the
prophets spoke about the future, “they could only do so meaningfully by
using terms and realities that existed in their past or present experience.”40
For this reason, when biblical authors sought to describe future conditions
they had not experienced, they oen used language and imagery from the
present which they had experienced.41
e rationale for this approach is the recognition that “our ideas about
things we have never experienced are largely controlled by things we have
experienced.”42 Put another way, “ings we have no real capacity to
understand can be expressed only through things we know and
experience.”43 For this reason, because the original audience could not fully
understand what it would be like to live in a world without death,44 Isaiah
65:20 “is using the idealized language of the present to portray in terms
intelligible to the people of his day the reality of future glory in the age to
come.”45 As Storms summarizes:

e best and most intelligible way that the original author of this
prophecy could communicate the realistic future glory of the new
heaven and new earth, to people who were necessarily limited by the
progress of revelation to that point in time, was to portray it in the
hyperbolic or exaggerated terms of an ideal present. What greater
glory was imaginable to the original audience to whom Isaiah wrote
than to speak of an age in which the all too familiar anguish of
childbirth was a thing of the past? His point isn’t to assert that people
will actually die or that women will continue to give birth. Rather, he
has taken two very concrete and painful experiences from the
common life of people in his own day to illustrate what to them,
then, was an almost unimaginable and inexpressible glory yet to
come.46
 According to the amillennialist, then, Isaiah 65:20 does not teach that
believers will live exceedingly long lives and yet eventually die in the new
heavens and new earth. Instead, this verse is said to describe “in the
language of present experience, something of the joy, blessedness, and
everlasting life that will be the circumstances of God’s people in the new
heavens and the new earth.”47 As Storms explains, “e prophet is seeking a
way to communicate vividly and effectively to a people who were constantly
burdened with the anguish of premature infant death and the sorrows that it
invariably would bring.”48 erefore, rather than saying people will actually
die prematurely at age 100, the prophet Isaiah “uses aspects of present life to
create impressions of the life that is yet to come.”49

AN EVALUATION OF THE AMILLENNIAL VIEW

e main problem with the amillennial view is that it underestimates the
ability of the original audience of Isaiah’s prophecy to understand the
concept of death being abolished. To justify their interpretation of Isaiah
65:20, amillennialists repeatedly appeal to how Old Testament prophecy
could only depict the future in a meaningful way if the prophets used terms
which were already familiar to their immediate listeners. But because a
world without death was completely foreign to their past or present
experience, the amillennialist claims, the original audience needed to be
addressed in idealized language of the present to portray the idea of
everlasting life in terms that were intelligible to them. erefore, when the
prophet Isaiah spoke of a day when “the youth will die at the age of one
hundred and the one who does not reach the age of one hundred will be
thought accursed” (Isa 65:20b), he was simply using this idealized language
to describe a future world in which there will be no sorrow because the
tragedy of death will no longer exist.
e most glaring weakness of this argument is that Isaiah 25:8 indicates
that the original audience of Isaiah’s prophecy could indeed understand
what it means that Yahweh will abolish death in such a way that His people
will no longer die. In describing the joy and glory of the eternal state, Isaiah
writes, “He will swallow up death for all time, and the Lord God will wipe
tears away from all faces, and He will remove the reproach of His people
from all the earth; for the Lord has spoken” (Isa 25:8). How, then, can the
amillennialist claim that the ultimate destruction of death could only be
communicated intelligibly through the idealized language of the present?
Was the original audience utterly mysti ed by the statement in Isaiah 25:8
that “He will swallow up death for all time”? Was not this promise
intelligible to Isaiah’s audience even though they had not yet experienced the
future world of immortality? e amillennialist has no basis for the claim
that the Old Testament prophets could only describe the future
meaningfully by using realities that existed in the past or present experience
of their immediate audience.
According to amillennialist Sam Storms, the reason that idealized
language was the “best and most intelligible way” for Isaiah to communicate
the future glory of the new heavens and earth is because his immediate
audience was limited by the progress of revelation.50 But if the limited
knowledge of his original audience did not keep them from understanding
the straightforward declaration of Isaiah 25:8, why did such limitations
necessitate the use of idealized language in Isaiah 65:20? Storms refers to this
idealized language as an attempt to solve “the age-old problem of how to
describe eschatological and heavenly concepts in human language.”51 He
claims that there was no greater glory imaginable to Isaiah’s audience “than
to speak of an age in which the all too familiar anguish of childbirth was a
thing of the past.”52 But Isaiah 25:8 makes it clear that the prophet was not
lacking for ways to clearly and meaningfully communicate the future glory
of death itself being a thing of the past. Is not the best and most intelligible
way to communicate the abolishment of death to say that death will no
longer exist?
Furthermore, if Isaiah was able to communicate intelligibly that God
“will swallow up death for all time” (Isa 25:8), why confuse the issue in
Isaiah 65:20 by using language which explicitly assumes the ongoing
existence of death? As John H. Sailhamer writes, “It is hard not to see in
Isaiah’s words an assumption that at this time death and misfortune will still
be factors in man’s earthly life. Even as gurative language there is a crucial
difference between ‘eternal life’ and ‘dying at a ripe old age.’”53 Put simply,
how is a description of the continuation of death the best and most
intelligible way to express the cessation of death? e hermeneutical
rationale for the amillennial view of Isaiah 65:20 is clearly lacking.54

PROPHETIC CONFLATION IN ISAIAH 65:17–25

But what about the amillennial argument that the various details in Isaiah
65:17–25 indicate that the passage refers to the eternal state? When the
prophet refers to the creation of “new heavens and a new earth” (v. 17a), the
leaving behind of former things (v. 17b), eternal joy (v. 18), the absence of
weeping (v. 19), and the absence of evil (v. 25), does not this prove that
Isaiah 65:17–25 will be ful lled exclusively in the eternal state?55 And if so,
how does the premillennialist explain the ongoing existence of physical
death, especially in light of passages indicating that death will no longer
exist in the new heavens and new earth (Isa 25:8; Rev 21:1–4)?
e premillennial response to this argument appeals to the prophetic
perspective of the Old Testament. As discussed in chapter 1, the Old
Testament prophets frequently did not seek to distinguish between speci c
events in the future, oentimes blending together two or more of these
events so they were practically indistinguishable.56 As Walt Kaiser writes:

e fundamental idea here is that many prophecies begin with a

word that ushers in not only a climactic ful llment, but a series of
events, all of which participate in and lead up to that climactic or
ultimate event in a protracted series that belong together as a unit
because of their corporate or collective solidarity. In this way, the
whole set of events makes up one collective totality and constitutes
only one idea, even though the events may be spread over a large
segment of history by the deliberate plan of God. e important
point to observe, however, is that all of the parts belong to a single
whole. ey are generically related to each other by some identi able
wholeness.57

In a somewhat dated illustration, this kind of prophetic perspective has been

compared to multiple transparencies being laid on top of each other on an
overhead projector, resulting in the projection of a uni ed whole even
though it is made up of several layers.58
Because Isaiah 65:17–25 cannot be identi ed exclusively with either the
millennium (see v. 17) or the eternal state (see v. 20), it must contain a
prophetic con ation of these two stages of the coming kingdom.59 e best
way to resolve the tension between Isaiah 25:8 (the abolishment of death)
and Isaiah 65:20 (the continuation of the death) is to understand Isaiah
65:17–25 as a mingling of elements from both the intermediate kingdom
and the eternal state.60 e only alternatives are either to deny that the new
heavens and earth in Isaiah 65:17 refers to the eternal state or to deny the
existence of physical death in Isaiah 65:20. Neither alternative does justice to
the language of the biblical text.
According to Franz Delitzsch, this con ation of millennial and eternal
conditions in Isaiah 65:17–25 results from the reality that “the Old
Testament prophet was not yet able to distinguish from one another the
things which the author of the Apocalypse separates into distinct periods.”61
In other words, with further revelation later in redemptive history, the
distinction between the two would become clear, but in Isaiah 65:17–25 the
prophet “saw together on the screen of prophecy both the Millennial
Kingdom and the Eternal Kingdom.”62

CONCLUSION
If Isaiah 65:17–25 does indeed consist of a con ation of the intermediate
kingdom and eternal state, the various amillennial arguments (that the
passage refers exclusively to the eternal state) lose their force. e
premillennial view—that the two stages of the coming kingdom are blended
together on the prophetic canvas of Isaiah 65:17–25—is able to account for
the entirety of the passage, including promises that must refer to the eternal
state. But the amillennial view that Isaiah 65:17–25 refers exclusively to the
eternal state cannot adequately explain the ongoing existence of physical
birth and physical death as portrayed in this passage (vv. 20, 22–23). In the
end, the two-age model of amillennialism has signi cant difficulty
accommodating Isaiah 65:17–25, which points to an intermediate kingdom
between the present age and the eternal state.
1 Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 40–66, NAC vol. 15B (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009),
721.
2 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings
of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 308; Smith, Isaiah 40–66,
721. According to Michael Vlach, “When this prophecy is ful lled people will be living
so long that if they die at age 100, something must be wrong since people will live
much longer than that. In fact, it will be assumed that a person dying at the age of 100
must have done something wrong. ey must be ‘accursed’” (Michael J. Vlach, “e
Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” MSJ 23, no. 2 [Fall 2012] 237). As Claus
Westermann explains, “If a person happens not to attain to a hundred years, there
must be some exceptional reason for this” (Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A
Commentary [Philadelphia: e Westminster Press, 1969], 409).
3 Herbert M. Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah: e Suffering and Glory of the Messiah (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1985), 250; John Oswalt, e Book of Isaiah: Chapters
40–66, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 658; A. Gardner, “Isaiah
65, 20: Centenarians or Millenarians?,” Biblica 86, no. 1 (2005), 89, 94–96; Alva
McClain, e Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God
(Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1959), 493. In this way, Isa 65:20 promises the
reversal of the limitation placed on the human lifespan because of sin (Gen 6:3). As R.
N. Whybray writes, “For the Israelite long life was one of the signs of God’s blessing,
and early death was oen attributed to sin. In Gen. 6:3 the shortness of human life in
general was also attributed to sin. A restoration of what would now be regarded as
exceptional longevity would therefore be a characteristic of life in the newly created
Jerusalem” (R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, NCBC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1975], 277).
4 Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002),
135. As Franz Delitzsch notes, unlike Isa 25:8—which describes the ultimate
destruction of death—Isa 65:20 refers only to the limitation of its power (F. Delitzsch,
Isaiah, trans. James Martin, Commentary on the Old Testament [repr., Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1996], 7:623). According to McClain, Isaiah 65 suggests that long life
will once again become the rule and physical death will be experienced “only by those
incorrigible individualists who rebel against the laws of the Kingdom” (e Greatness
of the Kingdom, 240).
5 According to Gardner, some of the trees mentioned in the Old Testament were
renowned for the length of their life span, including the oak (1,600 years) and the
cedar (2,000 years) (“Isaiah 65, 20: Centenarians or Millenarians?,” 94).
6 Vlach, “e Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” 237. As Vlach writes, “If a person
dies today at age 100 we say he lived a long life, not a short one.” According to Wayne
Grudem, “is single element (the infants and old men who live long, the child dying
one hundred years old, and the sinner being accursed) indicates a speci c time in the
future that is different from the present age” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic eology: An
 Introduction to Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1994], 1127–
28).
7 As Grudem writes, “Death and sin will still be present, for the child who is one
hundred years old shall die, and the sinner who is one hundred years old ‘shall be
accursed’” (Systematic eology, 1127).
8 Vlach, “e Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” 237–38. As Vlach explains, Isa
65:20 “must be ful lled in an era that is different from our current period yet distinct
from the eternal state” (“e Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” 237; cf. Robert L.
Saucy, e Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: e Interface Between Dispensational
and Non-Dispensational eology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1993], 240).
According to Vlach, several second-century Christians, including Justin Martyr,
appealed to Isaiah 65 as support for premillennialism (“e Kingdom of God and the
Millennium,” 238).
9 Geoffrey W. Grogan, “Isaiah,” in EBC, rev. ed., eds. Tremper Longman III and David E.
Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 6:452. According to David Allen, “is
passage cannot be referring to the heavenly reign of Christ for one obvious reason:
there is no death in heaven. e text says that people who die at the age of 100 will be
considered to have died young. is is a prophecy not about heaven or the eternal state
but about the millennial reign of Christ on earth” (David Allen, “e Millennial Reign
of Christ,” in e Return of Christ: A Premillennial Perspective, eds. David L. Allen and
Steve W. Lemke [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2011], 81).
10 Samuel E. Waldron, e End Times Made Simple: How Could Everyone Be So Wrong
About Biblical Prophecy? (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2003), 236.
11 Cornelis P. Venema, e Promise of the Future (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2000),
293.
12 Ibid., 292.
13 Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: e Amillennial Alternative (Ross-shire, Scotland:
Mentor, 2013), 167.
14 Ibid., 34.
15 Anthony Hoekema, e Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1979), 202.
16 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 292.
17 Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 236–37.
18 One notable exception is amillennialist E. J. Young, who sees Isa 65:17–25 as
encompassing the entire reign of Christ, including both the present age and the eternal
state (Edward J. Young, e Book of Isaiah [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1965], 3:514).
19 Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 237. According to amillennialist Anthony
Hoekema, Isa 65:17 clearly refers to the new heavens and the new earth, which Rev
21:1 identi es as the start of the eternal state (e Bible and the Future, 202).
20 Robert B. Strimple, “An Amillennial Response to Craig A. Blaising,” in ree Views on
the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing), 265–66; emphasis original.
21 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 293; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 202;
Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 237.
22 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 202.
23 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 293; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 202;
Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 237.
24 According to Hoekema, the promise of no more tears in Isa 65:19 precludes the
existence of death in the new heavens and new earth: “Can one imagine a death not
accompanied by weeping?” (e Bible the Future, 202). As Waldron argues, “Only the
perfectly redeemed (and not the millennial) earth brings about the cessation of
weeping and crying” (e End Times Made Simple, 237; also see Arthur H. Lewis, e
Dark Side of the Millennium: e Problem of Evil in Revelation 20:1–10 [Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1993], 37; Jonathan Menn, Biblical Eschatology [Eugene, OR: Resource
Publications, 2013], 304).
25 Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 237. According to amillennialist Dean Davis,
“Isai-ah himself says nothing of a thousand year epoch, nor does he even hint at the
idea that the world he describes will be temporary. To the contrary, he clearly
represents it as the eschaton, the nal state, the eternal World to Come (65:18, 19)”
(Dean Davis, e High King of Heaven: Discovering the Master Keys to the Great End
Time Debate [Enumclaw, WA: WinePress Publishing, 2014], 279).
26 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 202.
27 Ibid.
28 Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 237.
29 Ibid. Similarly, according to Hoekema, Isa 65:25 indicates that there will be no violence
on the new earth (e Bible and the Future, 203).
30 As an additional argument, Riddlebarger points to the chiastic structure of Isaiah 65–
66—as articulated and defended by J. Alec Motyer, e Prophecy of Isaiah: An
Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 522–23—
as evidence that Isa 65:17–25 is the climax of these two chapters. According to
Riddlebarger, as the climax of Isaiah 65–66, 65:17–25 must refer to the eternal state
rather than “a half-way redeemed earth in which people experience life-extension, only
to die later on” (Kim Riddlebarger, “Isaiah 65:17–25? Earthly Millennium? Or Eternal
State?,” accessed on April 4, 2014, http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-latest-
post/2006/6/27/isaiah-6517-25-earthly-millennium-or-eternal-state.html).
31 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 293; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 202;
Davis, e High King of Heaven, 279.
32 Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 238.
33 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 202.
34 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 293.
35 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 214. According to Davis, the great longevity of life
promised in Isa 65:20 ultimately “typi es” eternal life and thereby indicates that the
saints will live forever in the new heavens and new earth (279).
36 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 293; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 202–3;
Strimple, “An Amillennial Response,” 265–66; Davis, e High King of Heaven, 214,
 279; Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 237–38; Storms, Kingdom Come, 36; cf.
Motyer, e Prophecy of Isaiah, 530.
37 Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 237–38.
38 Storms, Kingdom Come, 34.
39 Richard Bauckham, e Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 450.
40 Christopher Wright, “A Christian Approach to Old Testament Prophecy Concerning
Israel,” in Jerusalem Past and Present in the Purposes of God, ed. P. W. L. Walker
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 3; also see Menn, Biblical Eschatology,
9, 435. According to Donald Garlington, this involves recognizing that the future “is
portrayed in terms of the ideal past, in terms both familiar and pleasing to the
contemporaries of the prophet” (Donald Garlington, “Reigning with Christ: Revelation
20:1–6 and the Question of the Millennium,” R&R 6, no. 2 [Spring 1997]: 61; emphasis
original). Davis refers to this as reading Isaiah’s prophecy “as a ‘covenantally
conditioned’ revelation of the perfect world” (e High King of Heaven, 279).
41 Storms, Kingdom Come, 31–32. According to Storms, this involves the Old Testament
prophet seeking to solve “the age-old problem of how to describe eschatological and
heavenly concepts in human language” (32).
42 D. Brent Sandy, Plowshares and Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical
Prophecy and Apocalyptic (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 25.
43 Motyer, e Prophecy of Isaiah, 530.
44 Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 237. As Riddlebarger explains in his discussion
of Isa 65:17–25, “Metaphors are used of things neither we nor Isaiah can fully
understand” (“Isaiah 65:17–25”). According to Sandy, “e prophets created
metaphors and similes from their world to let us experience what the world of God
and heaven is like—as best they could” (Plowshares and Pruning Hooks, 28).
45 Storms, Kingdom Come, 168.
46 Ibid., 35–36; emphasis original. Storms continues by quoting Motyer, who writes that
Isa 65:20 “does not imply that death will still be present (contradicting 25:7–8) but
rather affirms that over the whole of life, as we should now say from infancy to old age,
the power of death will be destroyed” (Motyer, e Prophecy of Isaiah, 530).
47 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 293.
48 Storms, Kingdom Come, 168. Storms continues, “He is, in effect, saying: ‘People, can
you imagine a time and place where if someone were to only live 100 years we would
all lament the fact that he/she had died so young?’ We need not insist that Isaiah is
saying, ‘Yes, and in literal fact, people in that time will die prematurely at age 100’”
(emphasis original).
49 Motyer, e Prophecy of Isaiah, 530. Waldron summarizes well the amillennial solution
to the “problem” of Isa 65:17–25: “How do we deal with the statements in this passage
which assume the continuation of death in the New Heavens and New Earth? We must
remember an important principle in the interpretation of Old Testament prophecy.
Old Testament prophecy oen predicts God’s coming, glorious kingdom by things
familiar to the people of God. Even we cannot understand what an earth without death
 would be like. is was even more true in the Old Testament shadows. us, the
Prophets spoke of the age to come as the highest possible happiness in the world as we
know it. Such happiness is pictured by a world where all the greatest sorrows and
deepest tragedies of our world are unknown. us, this passage does not speak of the
absence of death. It speaks rather of great longevity and the absence of premature
death. e unknown is revealed in terms of the known and the future in terms of the
past” (e End Times Made Simple, 237–38).
50 Storms, Kingdom Come, 35.
51 Ibid., 32.
52 Ibid., 35–36. Storms acknowledges that the prophet Isaiah is not “incapable of
envisioning a scenario in which physical death is altogether absent,” for he does so in
Isa 25:8 (168). But Storms fails to recognize how this concession undermines the
entirety of his hermeneutical approach to Isa 65:20.
53 John H. Sailhamer, “Evidence from Isaiah 2,” in A Case for Premillennialism: A New
Consensus, eds. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend (Chicago: Moody Press,
1992), 100.
54 A related problem with the amillennial interpretation of Isa 65:20 is its similar inability
to explain the assumption of physical birth in this verse. Why promise that infants will
no longer die shortly aer birth if infants will no longer be born? Why the references
to labor, bearing children, and physical offspring in Isa 65:23 if none of these will take
place in the eternal state? Such metaphors would only confuse Isaiah’s original
audience by leading them to believe that physical birth will continue in the coming
eschatological kingdom.
55 Incidentally, not all of these arguments are equally compelling. For example, the
argument that Isa 65:25 refers to the absence of evil (Waldron, e End Times Made
Simple, 237; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 203) fails to recognize that this verse
describes the activity of animals (rather than human beings) and therefore could just
as easily be describing the intermediate kingdom of the millennium (Isa 11:6–8).
56 According to George Eldon Ladd, “e modern mind is interested in chronology, in
sequence, in time. e prophetic mind usually was not concerned with such questions
but took its stand in the present and viewed the future as a great canvas of God’s
redemptive working in terms of height and breadth but lacking the clear dimension of
depth” (George Eldon Ladd, e Presence of the Future: e Eschatology of Biblical
Realism [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1974], 64–65). Most amillennnialists
also recognize this dynamic of “prophetic perspective” (Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for
Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, expanded ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 2013], 71; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 9, 12, 18, 21–22; Storms,
Kingdom Come, 29; Garlington, “Reigning with Christ,” 60–61; cf. Davis, e High King
of Heaven, 247–48). In fact, amillennialist E. J. Young sees this dynamic speci cally in
Isa 65:17–25, which he views as encompassing the entire reign of Christ, including
both the present age and the eternal state. According to Young, “In the concept of the
prophet, time and eternity, the age of the New Testament and the eternal heaven, are
not sharply distinguished” (e Book of Isaiah, 3:514).
57 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., e Use of the Old Testament in the New (Eugene, OR: Wipf and
Stock Publishers, 1985), 67–68. Kaiser appeals to Willis J. Beecher, who referred to this
as a generic prediction: “A generic prediction is one which regards an event as
occurring in a series of parts, separated by intervals, and expresses itself in language
that may apply indifferently to the nearest part, or to the remoter parts, or to the whole
—in other words, a prediction which, in applying to the whole of a complex event, also
applies to some of its parts” (Willis J. Beecher, e Prophets and the Promise, [1878;
repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1963], 130).
58 Robert L. Plummer, 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids: Kregel
Academic & Professional, 2010), 210. In the words of Henry Virkler, “When the
prophets looked toward the future, they also saw things that appeared to them to be
side by side, yet as the time of ful llment approaches, signi cant gaps become visible”
(Henry A. Virkler and Karelynne Gerber Ayayo, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes
of Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], 169–70). As
Näegelsbach observes, “Isaiah and the other prophets place closely together in their
pictures future things which belong to different times. ey do not draw the line
sharply between this world and the next” (C. W. E. Näegelsbach, “Isaiah,” in
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, eds. J. P. Lange and P. Schaff [1878; repr., Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1960], 6:713).
59 According to Russell Moore, this passage appears “to con ate the ‘new heavens and the
new earth’ with an intermediate stage of the Kingdom in which death and rebellion are
still present” (Russell D. Moore, e Kingdom of Christ: e New Evangelical
Perspective [Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004], 64). Premillennialist Walt Kaiser argues
that Isa 65:17–19 speci cally refers to the eternal state whereas Isa 65:20–25 refers to
the intermediate kingdom (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Preaching and Teaching the Last
ings: Old Testament Eschatology for the Life of the Church [Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2011], 160–61; Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, and Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible,
308–9; also see Paul Lee Tan, e Interpretation of Prophecy [Winona Lake, IN: BMH
Books, 1974], 92, and McClain, e Greatness of the Kingdom, 138). According to this
interpretation—a minority view which Kaiser himself describes as “unusual”—the
author arranged his material topically rather than chronologically and the “Jerusalem”
of verses 17–19 is altogether different from the “Jerusalem” of verses 20–24 (Kaiser,
Preaching and Teaching the Last ings, 160). Amillennialist Sam Storms rightfully
disputes Kaiser’s view, arguing that nothing in the passage suggests this “radical
distinction,” and that the antecedent of the pronoun “it” in verse 20 must be the
Jerusalem of verse 19, which identi es the two cities as one and the same (Kingdom
Come, 168–69). In contrast to Kaiser’s view, most premillennialists see Isa 65:17–25 as
a con ation of the millennium with the eternal state and do not draw such
distinctions.
60 Grudem, Systematic eology, 1127–28; Moore, e Kingdom of Christ, 64; Saucy,
Progressive Dispensationalism, 55–56; McClain, e Greatness of the Kingdom, 138–39;
Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah, 251; Delitzsch, Isaiah, 7:624; Oswalt, e Book of Isaiah, 656.
61 Delitzsch, Isaiah, 7:624. Kaiser agrees “that the prophet may not yet have distinguished
and separated these into two separate periods” (Hard Sayings of the Bible, 309).
62 McClain, e Greatness of the Kingdom, 138; emphasis original. As Saucy writes, “e
Old Testament prophetic picture does not draw as clear a line of chronological
demarcation between the present history and the nal perfect state as appears in
Revelation 20–22” (Progressive Dispensationalism, 55–56).
 Chapter 4

e Intermediate Kingdom
in Zechariah

INTRODUCTION

Sometimes known as “the Apocalypse of the Old Testament,” the prophecy

of Zechariah came to the people of Judah during a season of great difficulty
and discouragement.

Despite the Hebrews’ return from Bablyonian exile, there was little
evidence of the program of covenant restoration Yahweh had
promised Jerusalem (e.g., Jer. 30–33 and Ezek 36–39). Sel shness
crippled community spirit, and the general mood of the period was
gloomy and dismal. In fact, only a small percentage of Hebrew
captives had actually returned to Judah, and the city wall still lay in
ruins, the temple of God remained a rubble heap, and drought and
blight ravaged the land. Judah remained a Persian vassal state, and
the surrounding nations continued to harass the leaders in Jerusalem
and thwart their timid efforts to improve the bleak situation.1

To rouse them from their discouragement and spiritual indifference, the

Lord raised up the prophet Zechariah to bring a message of rebuke,
exhortation, and encouragement to the people of Judah. Zechariah not only
called them to repentance and spiritual renewal, but he also directed their
gaze to the future, speaking of a day when the feeble structures of the
present would give way to God’s glorious eschatological kingdom.2
In his prophetic portrayals of this coming kingdom, Zechariah pictures a
day when the Lord will reign over the world in peace and righteousness, and
yet this earthly kingdom will also include temporal elements such as
physical aging, human rebellion, and even divine judgment against sin
(Zech 8:1–8; 14:1–21). Because these kingdom prophecies are impossible to
harmonize with either the present age or the eternal state, they are
incompatible with the two-age model of amillennialism. In contrast, they
correspond well to the intermediate kingdom of premillennialism when
Jesus will reign over a radically transformed and yet still imperfect world.
is initial phase of the coming kingdom can be seen most clearly in
Zechariah 8:4–5 and 14:16–19.

THE INTERMEDIATE KINGDOM IN ZECHARIAH 8:4–5

In Zechariah 8, the Lord speaks of returning to Zion with great wrath and
jealousy and dwelling in the midst of Jerusalem, which will be called “the
City of Truth” (vv. 1–3). When He returns, the capital city of God’s kingdom
will be characterized by sweet fellowship,3 being a time of undisturbed peace
and tranquility in which even the weakest and most defenseless members of
society will live in security.4 As the Lord Himself says in Zechariah 8:4–5:

Old men and old women will again sit in the streets of Jerusalem,
each man with his staff in his hand because of age. And the streets of
the city will be lled with boys and girls playing in its streets (Zech
8:4–5).5

According to this passage, “the entire population will enjoy an atmosphere

of renewal and blessing.”6 As George Klein describes:

e very young will have the freedom to enjoy the carefree play that
rightly belongs to childhood. ose in their middle years will divide
their time equally between their work and the leisure their labors
have earned them. e aged will rest peacefully aer a lifetime of
toil, celebrating the riches of God’s blessings.7
Even the use of walking sticks by the elderly does not diminish the joy and
renewal of this kingdom scene but rather emphasizes the longevity of life
promised in Isaiah 65:20.8 In the coming kingdom, God’s people will live to
a “ripe old age” and will enjoy the blessing of seeing their descendants
playing in the streets.9
In this description of peace and joy in the coming kingdom, however, it
cannot be ignored that not only do age discrepancies still exist—“old men
and old women” (v. 4) and “boys and girls” (v. 5)—but the weakness of old
age makes it necessary for the elderly to lean on a cane: “each man with his
staff in his hand because of age” (v. 4b). is physical weakness suggests
some kind of intermediate era “that is different from the present evil age but
different also from the eternal state in which all negative aspects of aging
and death are removed.”10 As premillennialist Michael Vlach writes:

From Zechariah’s time until now there has never been a time where
the conditions of Zechariah 8 have happened. On the other hand,
there will be no elderly who are weak in the nal eternal state for all
remnants of the curse have been removed (see Revelation 21 and 22).
What Zechariah describes here, therefore, must take place in an
initial phase of God’s kingdom before the eternal state begins.11

In other words, there must be a preliminary stage in the coming kingdom

that includes natural human processes such as procreation, birth, and aging.
is initial phase of God’s kingdom in Zechariah 8:4–5 coincides well with
the millennial kingdom of premillennialism, but it appears to be
incompatible with the two-age model of amillennialism.

e Amillennial View of Zechariah 8:4–5

According to amillennialist Dean Davis, because Jesus taught that there will
be neither marriage nor procreation in the completed kingdom (Luke
20:34–36), Zechariah 8:4–5 must be using Old Testament images of divine
blessing to describe the everlasting joys of God’s New Testament people.12
Amillennialist Floyd Hamilton makes this same appeal to Luke 20:34–36,
raising the question of which is to be the standard—the “literal
interpretation of Old Testament prophecy” or “the eschatological teaching of
Christ.”13 According to Hamilton, “a literal interpretation of these
prophecies brings them into contradiction with the plain teachings of
Christ,” and therefore Zechariah 8:4–5 must be interpreted symbolically.14
In the view of amillennialists, then, “Zechariah is not saying that literal
old men and women will watch literal boys and girls play in the new heavens
and the new earth.”15 Instead, the meaning of Zechariah 8:4–5 is found in
the symbolic signi cance given to it by the New Testament. According to
this approach, Zechariah 8:4–5 means that

in the last days God will bless his NT people with great longevity
(Exodus 20:12, Deut. 5:33, 6:2, 11:8–9), and with great fruitfulness
(Gen. 1:28, 9:1, 17:6, Exodus 1:7, Lev. 26:9, Deut. 7:14). In other
words, he will bless them with eternal life, and with all the child-like
joy and spiritual fruitfulness that must characterize the people who
receive it (John 15:8, Gal. 5:22f, 1 Peter 1:8).16

To summarize, then, Zechariah 8:4–5 does not describe a coming kingdom

which includes natural human processes such as procreation, birth, and
aging; it symbolically portrays the child-like joy, eternal life, and spiritual
fruitfulness characteristic of God’s people in the last days.17

An Evaluation of the Amillennial View

e initial problem with this interpretation is that the immediate context
indicates that the scene in Zechariah 8:4–5 will be ushered in by the Second
Coming of Christ (see 8:1–3 and 6–8), but Davis sees this passage ful lled in
the experience of the church in both the present age and the world to
come.18 Davis contends that Zechariah 8:4–5 is a symbolic portrayal of how
believers “bear much fruit” (John 15:8) and produce the fruit of the Spirit
(Gal 5:22–23) during the present age. But the conditions in the streets of
Jerusalem described in Zechariah 8:4–5 will only be possible because the
Lord has returned to Zion and dwells in the midst of the city (Zech 8:3).19
So Zechariah 8:4–5 cannot be understood as having its ful llment prior to
the Second Coming.
 An additional problem with this interpretation is its inability to provide
a reasonable and coherent explanation of the details of Zechariah 8:4–5,
even with a symbolic approach to the passage. According to Davis, the scene
of the elderly sitting with their canes in the streets while the children play
alongside them symbolizes three speci c blessings experienced by the
church: child-like joy, eternal life, and spiritual fruitfulness.20 If Zechariah
8:4–5 is to be understood symbolically rather than literally, it is certainly
reasonable to interpret boys and girls playing in the streets as signifying
child-like joy promised to the people of God.21 But Davis’s argument that
this scene symbolizes eternal life and spiritual fruitfulness is far less
convincing.
To support his claim that this prophetic scene promises eternal life,
Davis cites Old Testament passages where Yahweh promises to prolong
Israel’s days in the land if they obey His commandments (Exod 20:12; Deut
5:33; 6:2; 11:8–9).22 According to Davis, the elderly in Zechariah 8:4
symbolize this promise of long life, and this longevity of life typi es the gi
of eternal life. In this way, the picture of elderly men and women sitting with
their canes in the streets is said to symbolize eternal life.
e difficulty with this view comes when the interpreter examines the
scene in Zechariah 8:4–5 and tries to nd the concept of eternal life. How
can a description of the elderly who use a cane “because of age” be
interpreted as portraying the promise of eternal life in which there will be
no aging, weakness, in rmity, or death? If the prophetic purpose of
Zechariah 8 is to portray a day when the saints will be immortal and no
longer subject to the effects of growing old, why accentuate those very effects
in the way the saints are described? Why picture them as sitting with a staff
in hand because of their old age? Promising a longevity of life which
includes the effects of aging—and therefore the implication of death—is an
ineffective if not misleading way to communicate the promise of eternal life.
To support his claim that Zechariah 8:4–5 promises spiritual fruitfulness,
Davis cites Old Testament passages in which (a) Yahweh exhorts His people
to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28; 9:1); (b) Yahweh promises that His
people will be fruitful and multiply (Gen 17:6; Lev 26:9; Deut 7:14); and (c)
His people actually become fruitful and multiply (Exod 1:7). According to
Davis, the repopulation of Jerusalem with both young and old in Zechariah
8:4–5 is the ful llment of this promise of physical fruitfulness, and the
promise of physical fruitfulness typi es the promise of spiritual fruitfulness.
erefore, the repopulation of Jerusalem in Zechariah 8:4–5 is seen by Davis
as a symbolic portrayal of how believers will “bear much fruit” (John 15:8),
produce the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22–23), and rejoice in their love for
Jesus (1 Pet 1:8) in the present age.
Although it seems reasonable to interpret the repopulation of Jerusalem
as the ful llment of God’s promise to multiply the physical descendants of
His people, the shi from physical to spiritual fruitfulness is much more
difficult to justify. Even in light of New Testament revelation, how could the
objective interpreter read the description of the elderly sitting in the streets
while the children play and conclude that this promise is ful lled when
God’s people exhibit the fruit of the Holy Spirit in the last days? Who would
read Zechariah 8:4–5 and Galatians 5:22–23 and see the latter as a
ful llment of the former? Where does Scripture itself make this connection
between physical offspring and the fruit of the Holy Spirit? is explanation
of Zechariah 8:4–5 effectively denies the perspicuity of the Old Testament
and introduces a subjectivity and arbitrariness of interpretation
characteristic of an allegorical approach to Scripture.
All of this highlights the larger issue of amillennialism’s inability to
explain Zechariah 8:4–5 in a way that is compatible with its two-age model.
In other words, the problem is not simply with the speci c symbolic
interpretation proposed by Davis, but with any interpretation that sees
Zechariah 8 as ful lled either in the present age or in the eternal state. e
speci c challenge for the amillennialist is how to explain the existence of
children and the aging of the elderly as characteristic of the eternal state.
Rather than letting the words of Luke 20:34–36 silence the promise of
Zechariah 8:4–5, the systematic theologian must harmonize the two
passages to account for all that Scripture teaches about the coming kingdom.
Premillennialism does so by seeing Zechariah 8:4–5 as being ful lled in an
initial phase of the kingdom between the present age and the eternal state.
But because of its rejection of an intermediate kingdom, amillennialism has
signi cant difficulty explaining how and when Zechariah 8:4–5 will be
ful lled.
 THE INTERMEDIATE KINGDOM IN ZECHARIAH 14:16–19
Zechariah 14 pictures a coming day when Jesus will return to this world,23
arriving on the Mount of Olives (vv. 3–5) to defeat the invading enemies of
Jerusalem (vv. 12–15) and to establish His messianic kingdom (vv. 8–11).24
Once the Lord has established Himself as “king over all the earth” (v. 9), He
will reign over the nations of the world (vv. 16–21). In verses 16-19, the
prophet Zechariah describes the annual worship of the Lord that will take
place during His reign:

en it will come about that any who are le of all the nations that
went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the
King, the Lord of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. And it
will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to
Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no
rain on them. If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no
rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which the Lord
smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths.
is will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the
nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths.

e Premillennial Argument from Zechariah 14:16–19

In this prophetic picture of the coming kingdom, those among the nations
who survive the battle against Jerusalem will take part in annual worship of
King Jesus (v. 16).25 is worship will consist of these survivors going up to
the city of Jerusalem from year to year to celebrate the Feast of Booths.26
Over time, however, some will refuse to make this annual pilgrimage to
worship the King, and consequently God will punish them by withholding
rain and bringing drought upon their land.27 is divinely imposed drought
—described as “the plague with which the Lord smites the nations” (v. 18)28
and “the punishment of all the nations” (v. 19)29—will serve as a tting
penalty for those who refuse to celebrate the Feast of Booths to acknowledge
God’s sovereignty and goodness in providing for their physical needs (Lev
23:33–43; Deut 16:13–17).30
 According to this passage, then, the Lord Himself will rule as king over
all the earth, and yet this messianic reign of peace will not immediately
involve the exclusion of all sin.31 Instead, the rebellion of nations refusing to
worship the Messiah will be met with decisive judgment as the Lord smites
the disobedient with the plague of drought.32 e kingdom of Jesus in
Zechariah 14, in other words, will take place in a radically transformed and
yet imperfect world in which sin, rebellion, suffering, and death continue to
exist.33
As premillennialists commonly argue, the sin and punishment of the
nations in this post-parousia kingdom of Christ is incompatible with either
the present age or the eternal state.34 is prophetic description does not t
the present age, because the Lord is reigning as King over all the earth; but
neither does it t the eternal state, because of the rebellion against the Lord,
which is so clearly present.35 Instead, as Vlach observes, the events in
Zechariah 14 t best with the intermediate kingdom of premillennialism:

While people from all nations are being saved in the present age, the
nations themselves do not obey our Lord (see Psalm 2). In fact, they
persecute those who belong to the Lord. In the millennial kingdom
Jesus will rule the nations while He is physically present on the earth.
e nations will obey and submit to His rule, but as Zechariah 14
points out, whenever a nation does [not] act as [it] should there is
punishment. On the other hand, in the eternal state there will be
absolutely no disobedience on the part of the nations. e picture of
the nations in the eternal state is only positive. e kings of the
nations bring their contributions to the New Jerusalem (see Rev
21:24) and the leaves of the tree of life are said to be for the healing
of the nations (see Rev 22:2).36

Because the description in Zechariah 14:16–19 is incompatible with

both the present age and the eternal state, this passage provides evidence for
an intermediate kingdom established at the Second Coming of Christ. As
Vlach observes, a comparison between the three time periods clari es the
distinctiveness of the millennial kingdom as described in Zechariah 14:16–
19: in the present age Jesus is in heaven and the nations do not yet submit to
Him as King; in the millennial kingdom Jesus will rule the nations and
punish nations that are rebellious; and in the eternal state the nations will be
free from sin and rebellion and therefore have no need of punishment.37
e straightforward reading of Zechariah 14:16–19, then, ts perfectly
with the eschatology of premillennialism. In contrast, the two-age model of
amillennialism has sign cant difficulty harmonizing this passage with its
denial of an intermediate kingdom in which Jesus reigns as king over a
transformed and yet imperfect world still tainted by rebellion and divine
judgment.

e Amillennial View of Zechariah 14:16–19

According to amillennialism, the prophecy of Zechariah 14 portrays (a) the
nal battle between God and His enemies at the Second Coming of Christ
(vv. 1–15) and (b) the everlasting worship of the eternal state that follows
(vv. 16–21).38 e primary difference between the two eschatological
positions, then, is that premillennialists interpret verses 16–21 as ful lled in
the intermediate kingdom of the millennium, but amillennialists see this
passage as ful lled in the eternal state.
e most extensive response to the premillennial argument from
Zechariah 14 comes from amillennialist Dean Davis.39 According to Davis,
there are ve reasons why the premillennial interpretation of Zechariah
14:16–19 should be rejected, but none of these objections are compelling.
First, according to Davis, the passage says nothing at all about a temporary
millennial reign of Christ.40 Davis writes:

Anyone who reads the text objectively, refusing to import millennial

presuppositions into it, will see immediately that Zechariah is
speaking of the conversion of eschatological Israel, the Last Battle,
the Day of the LORD, and the eternal worship of the World to Come.
It is completely counterintuitive to think that an oracle so grand—so
cosmic—in its scale, should have as its terminus ad quem a
temporary millennial reign of the Messiah, rather than the ultimate
glories of the perfected Kingdom of God.41
 In response, the problem with dismissing an intermediate kingdom in
Zechariah 14:16–19 because it seems “counterintuitive” is that this argument
grants authority to human intuition in determining the meaning of
Scripture. If the rebellion and punishment of the nations in this prophecy
cannot be harmonized with the eternal state, then a temporary millennial
reign of the Messiah may be the only way to understand Zechariah 14,
regardless of what seems counterintuitive to a given interpreter.
Second, according to Davis, if Zechariah 14 and the other Old Testament
prophecies of the nal battle (Ezek 38–39; Dan 7:1–28; 9:26–27; 11:36–
12:17; Joel 3:1–17; Mic 4:11–5:1; Zech 12:1–7) are interpreted literally, “it is
impossible to reconcile the con icting data.”42 Because of these
contradictions, Davis claims, the only viable solution is to interpret each of
these prophecies as a symbolic, typologically veiled revelation of the nal
clash between the church and the world, the nature of which is fully
disclosed only in the New Testament. Otherwise, Davis argues, the divine
inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture cannot be retained.43
In response to this argument, the discrepancies cited by Davis consist of
details which are complementary rather than contradictory. For example,
according to Davis, the following “contradictions” are impossible to
reconcile: (a) Daniel and Ezekiel identify a speci c invading and occupying
power, but the other prophets do not designate one;44 (b) Joel and Zechariah
state that all the nations will take part in the battle, whereas Ezekiel, Daniel,
and Micah simply refer to many nations;45 (c) Daniel and Ezekiel speak of a
single leader who spearheads the nal battle, whereas Joel, Micah, and
Zechariah say nothing about an individual leader;46 (d) Micah, Daniel, and
Zechariah envision God’s people as ghting against His enemies, but Ezekiel
and Joel depict God Himself as the One who ghts victoriously;47 and (e)
Joel pictures the sun and moon growing dark, with God shaking the heavens
and earth, but Micah describes no such cosmic disturbances, and Ezekiel
pictures God shaking the land but not the heavens.48
Harmonizing these so-called contradictions, however, is no more
difficult for most interpreters than harmonizing differences between parallel
accounts in the New Testament gospels. If the interpreter starts with the
recognition that no single prophetic or narrative account is an exhaustive
description of what has happened or will happen, the supposed
contradictions are easy to explain. When Joel mentions God shaking the
heavens and earth while Ezekiel pictures God shaking only the earth, this is
no more a contradiction than when Mark 16:1 mentions the grave of Jesus
being approached by three women (“Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of
James, and Salome”), while Matthew 28:1 mentions only two (“Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary”). e details mentioned in the various
prophetic descriptions of the nal battle complement one another, and a
literal interpretation of these prophetic passages poses no threat to the
doctrines of biblical inspiration and inerrancy.
ird, according to Davis, the anachronisms in Zechariah preclude the
possibility of a literal interpretation of Zechariah 14. As Davis writes: “Do
we really want to say, for example, that at the end of the present (and very
modern) age, the nations of the earth will come up against ethnic Israel
riding horses, camels, and donkeys; or that they will bring cattle with them
to serve as food (12:4, 14:15)?”49 is, according to Davis, poses one of the
“intractable problems” for the premillennial view of this passage.50
Although this argument raises a valid hermeneutical question, it poses
no actual problem for the premillennial interpretation of Zechariah 14.
Premillennialists have long recognized the need to take an “analogical
approach” with some Old Testament prophecies.51 With this approach, the
interpreter recognizes that sometimes the prophets “described the
armaments of future eschatological battles in terms of the implements of war
known to that day,”52 and therefore “statements are interpreted literally but
then translated into their modern-day equivalents.”53
Because it is unlikely (although certainly not impossible) that horses will
be used as the primary means of advancing on Israel in the Battle of
Armaggedon (Zech 12:4), the prophet may be describing the implements of
future war with battle imagery familiar in his own day.54 If so, to interpret
the intended meaning of Zechariah 12:4 one must understand the role that
horses played in ancient Near Eastern warfare. In that culture, the warhorse
functioned as an elite military weapon, and therefore the approach of the
invading nations on horses made it clear that Judah faced overwhelming
odds, leaving her with no hope for deliverance but in God alone.55
Because of the role of the warhorse in that culture, modern analogies,
although inexact, might include weapons such as armory, artillery, and
advanced military aircra.56 But regardless of whether the modern-day
interpreter is able to identify the speci c referent that will ful ll this
prophecy in the future, the intended meaning of the use of horses in warfare
—and its implications for how this prophecy will be ful lled—is clear to the
one who understands the text literally in its original historical and cultural
context. e use of anachronisms in Zechariah presents no difficulty for the
premillennial interpretation of Zechariah 14.
Fourth, according to Davis, a literal reading of Zechariah 14 presents a
number of theological problems. For example, according to the literal
interpretation of this prophecy, Israel and the nations will revert to
observing the Mosaic Law even though it was ful lled and rendered obsolete
by Christ (Matt 5:17; Rom 10:4; Heb 8:13), and they will travel to Jerusalem
to observe the Feast of Booths and make animal sacri ces in the Temple
(Zech 14:20–21).57 According to Davis, the mind steeped in New Testament
revelation “simply cannot bring itself to assent to such propositions,” and it
looks instead for the spiritual realities of which these mysterious pictures are
Old Testament types, shadows, and symbols.58
In spite of Davis’s inability to assent to the straightforward description in
this prophecy, the literal reading of Zechariah 14:16–21 presents no
insurmountable theological problems. As prescribed in the Old Testament,
the sacri ces offered in the Feast of Booths were intended to be an
expression of worship in which the people of Israel rejoiced before the Lord
and celebrated not only their deliverance from bondage in Egypt but also the
annual harvest that God provided for the year (Lev 23:33–43; Deut 16:13–
17). Known as “the Feast of the Ingathering” (Exod 23:16; 34:22), it was to
be a time a great joy in which the people acknowledged the faithfulness of
God and expressed their gratitude for His goodness and sovereignty in
providing for their physical needs.59 As such, the reinstitution of this
celebration during the millennial kingdom will serve as an appropriate
opportunity for God’s people—both Jew and Gentile—to express their
devotion to the Lord who reigns in Jerusalem. As Carl Fried-rich Keil writes,
“is feast will be kept by the heathen who have come to believe in the
living God, to thank the Lord for His grace, that He has brought them out of
the wanderings of this life into the blessedness of His kingdom of peace.”60
ere is simply no reason why a future, eschatological celebration of this
feast would require the re-establishment of anything that has been abolished
or rendered obsolete by the rst coming of Christ.
As some premillennialists have noted, the Feast of Booths is the only Old
Testament feast without a corresponding New Testament anti-type.61 But
even if an anti-type of the Feast of Booths were identi ed, Jesus Himself
indicates that this would not preclude the possibility of its future
celebration.62 In Luke 22, when Jesus spoke about the establishment of a
New Covenant, He looked ahead to eating a Passover meal with His
disciples in the coming kingdom (vv. 15–16). Consequently, even though the
New Covenant has replaced the Mosaic Covenant (Jer 31:31–34; Heb 8:13)
—and even though Christ is identi ed as the anti-type of the Passover in 1
Corinthians 5:7—Jesus and His disciples will nonetheless eat a Passover
meal together. Celebrating the Feast of Booths in the messianic kingdom
will no more constitute a return to the Mosaic Law than eating the Passover
will.63
Fih, according to Davis, the apocalyptic genre of Zechariah indicates
that this prophecy must be interpreted symbolically rather than literally.64 In
fact, the apocalyptic genre of Zechariah appears to be the most important
factor for most amillennialists in their reading of this passage. For example,
Vern Poythress concedes that “Zechariah 14, if read in a straightforward
manner, is particularly difficult for an amillennialist,” even stating that he
would probably choose this prophecy as a main text if he were to defend
premillennialism in a debate.65 “On the other hand,” Poythress writes, “the
fact that Zechariah 14 is apocalyptic means that it presents hermeneutical
challenges. I am reluctant to put much weight on it.”66
Davis makes a similar argument:

Was there ever an OT prophet whose writing more fully embodied

the “apocalyptic” mode of divine revelation than Zechariah? Was
there ever a prophet who more consistently edi ed and encouraged
God’s OT people by clothing his great eschatological revelations in
vision and symbol?67

Because of the apocalyptic genre of this prophecy, Davis believes that

Zechariah 14 must be interpreted “eschatologically, covenantally,
typologically, and ecclesiologically.”68 Adopting this approach means
understanding the passage as a “veiled” or “mysterious” representation of life
under the New Covenant which is designed to provide wisdom, strength,
and comfort for the Christian Church.69 For Davis, the “only hope of
penetrating to the deep meaning of this great oracle lies in the skillful use” of
what he calls a “New Covenant Hermeneutic.”70
e New Covenant Hermeneutic starts with recognizing that when God
revealed kingdom promises through the Old Testament prophets, He chose
to veil those prophecies in imagery drawn from the Old Covenant.
According to Davis, this rendered the true nature of the coming kingdom a
mysterious secret that would not be fully revealed until the coming of
Christ.71 For this reason, when today’s interpreter comes to Old Testament
prophecy, he must use the New Covenant to “translate the mystical
language” of the Old Covenant, which results in a gurative interpretation of
the prophet’s words rather than a literal one.72 In doing so, the interpreter’s
goal is “to see the blessings that Christ brought us in New Testament times
mystically promised and pre gured in the Old.”73
By applying this hermeneutic to Zechariah 14:16–19, Davis interprets
the celebration of the Feast of Booths as a typological portrayal of the
eternal worship of the glori ed church in the eternal state.74 According to
Davis, “Zechariah’s eschatological Feast of Booths will indeed be a harvest
feast, since here, in the World to Come, all the saints will have been gathered
into the barn of God’s completed Kingdom (Mt. 13:30, John 4:38, Rev.
14:14–16).”75
As for Egypt and the nations that refuse to celebrate the Feast of Booths,
Davis believes that these typify all those “who refused to accept spiritual
rescue from the Domain of Darkness, and spiritual transfer into the
Kingdom of God’s beloved Son (Col. 1:13)” and “who refused to walk with
Christ through the wilderness of this world to the Promised Land (Heb.
11:26, Rev. 12:1f).”76 In other words, the nations refusing to celebrate the
feast are those who have rejected the gospel and refused to worship the one
true God during the present age.
is interpretation raises the question of how Davis explains the
existence of these unbelievers alongside the saints on earth in the eternal
state. According to Davis, this puzzle is solved by looking to the description
of the world to come in Revelation 22. According to Revelation 22:15, the
unbelieving nations are far from Jerusalem, outside the gates of the Holy
City, in the Lake of Fire (cf. Isa 66:24; Rev 19:20; 20:10, 14).77 Davis writes:

It is, therefore, in death (and hell) that the impenitent enemies of

God will endure the very plague of drought that they chose for
themselves in life, when they refused to drink of the Rock, and to
follow the Rock, that God offered them in the Gospel (Mt. 12:43
NAS, Luke 16:24, John 7:37, 1 Cor. 10:4, Rev. 21:6, 22:17).78

According to Davis, then, the description of the Lord punishing those who
refuse to worship in Zechariah 14:16–19 is ful lled when unbelievers are
tormented in the eternal Lake of Fire as described in the Book of Revelation.
e main problem with this view is that it fails to provide a feasible
explanation of the judgment of the nations in Zechariah 14:16–19, even if a
symbolic hermeneutic is used. e primary reason this interpretation falls
short is because the divine punishment of Zechariah 14:16–19 is directed at
rebellion which takes place aer the Lord returns to earth and establishes
Himself as King. As Wayne Grudem explains, an amillennialist might insist

that this is a typical Old Testament prophecy in which distinct future

events are con ated and not distinguished in the prophet’s vision,
though they may be separated by long ages when they actually occur.
However, it is difficult to make such a distinction in this passage
because it is speci cally rebellion against the Lord who is King over
all the earth that is punished by these plagues and lack of rain.79

In other words, rather than being poured out on those who reject the gospel
prior to the Second Coming—as Davis asserts in his explanation of the
passage80—the divine judgment of Zechariah 14:16–19 is poured out on
those who refuse to worship the Lord aer His Second Coming.
To clarify the incongruity of the amillennial view, it is helpful to review
the sequence of events set forth in Zechariah 14:

e nations attack Jerusalem (vv. 1–2).

 e Lord returns (2nd Coming) and intervenes on Israel’s behalf
(vv. 3–7).
e Lord destroys most of Israel’s enemies in the battle (vv. 12–
15).
e Lord is established in Jerusalem as king of the earth (vv. 8–
11).81
e survivors of battle worship the Lord annually in Jerusalem
(vv. 16–19).
Some survivors of the battle refuse to worship the Lord in
Jerusalem (vv. 16–19).
e Lord punishes those who refuse by withholding rain (vv. 16–
19).
e people of God continue to worship the Lord in holiness (vv.
20–21).

Because amillennialism asserts that the eternal state begins when the nations
are judged at the Second Coming, it cannot account for a subsequent
judgment of some of the survivors of that battle when they refuse to worship
the Lord.82 Even its typological hermeneutic cannot explain Zechariah 14 in
a way that removes the need for an intermediate kingdom prior to the
eternal state. In contrast, premillennialism accounts well for this subsequent
judgment by affirming the straightforward reading of Zechariah 14: e
nations will be judged and destroyed at the Second Coming of Christ (vv.
12–15), and those survivors of the battle who refuse to worship the King
during the millennium will be punished by the Lord (vv. 16–19).
An alternative amillennial interpretation of Zechariah 14:16–19 holds
that the portrayal of nations refusing to worship God in this passage is
purely hypothetical. According to this view, no such nations will exist at that
time, but instead the prophet Zechariah has created a hypothetical scenario
to convey the absoluteness of God’s rule in the eternal state and to envision
the end of all rebellion against Yahweh.83
e problem with this view is that this hypothetical scenario fails to
accomplish the goal of conveying the absoluteness of God’s rule. How does
portraying the existence of rebellion against Yahweh serve to envision the
end of all rebellion against Yahweh? How does a hypothetical rise of de ance
against God communicate that no such de ance will ever arise, especially
since it is not identi ed as hypothetical? How would this scenario increase
the assurance of God’s people that human rebellion will not exist in the
eternal state? Would not a more effective way to communicate the
impossibility of this scenario be to portray a kingdom where sin and
rebellion no longer exist because they have already been destroyed once and
for all? is view fails to provide a reasonable explanation of the passage,
and the premillennial case for an intermediate kingdom in Zechariah 14
remains compelling.

1 Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 691.
2 Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti, e World and the Word:
An Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2011), 488.
3 Michael J. Vlach, “e Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” MSJ 23, no. 2 (Fall
2012): 238. According to amillennialist Dean Davis, many premillennialists
con dently assert that Zech 8:1–8 was ful lled in 1948 when the modern-day state of
Israel was established. In refuting this view, Davis points out that “even a cursory
reading of this heart-warming text will persuade the reader that the happy scenes
depicted therein cannot possibly speak of life in modern war-torn Israel” (Dean Davis,
e High King of Heaven: Discovering the Master Keys to the Great End Time Debate
[Enumclaw, WA: WinePress Publishing, 2014], 657). In reality, however, Davis would
be hard-pressed to name a single premillennial scholar who believes that Zech 8:1–8
was ful lled in 1948 or that it describes life in modern war-torn Israel.
4 Kenneth L. Barker, “Zechariah,” in EBC, rev. ed., ed. Tremper Longman III and David
E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2008), 8:783; George L. Klein,
Zechariah, NAC vol. 21B (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008), 236.
5 According to George Klein, verse 4 represents a shi in focus from the spiritual health
that the Lord will bring to Judah when He comes (v. 3) to the material bene ts He will
provide through His return, including long life, political security, and undisturbed
peace (vv. 4–5) (Klein, Zechariah, 236).
6 Klein, Zechariah, 236; cf. Alva McClain, e Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive
Study of the Kingdom of God (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1959), 228.
7 Klein, Zechariah, 236.
8 Eugene H. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1994), 222.
9 Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Interpreting the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 1990), 256.
10 Vlach, “e Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” 238–39.
 Ibid., 239. According to Vlach, “Such an intermediate state between the present age
11 and the eternal state is described in Revelation 20 where a thousand-year reign of
Christ is emphasized.”
12 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 213. Later Davis says that Zech 8:1–8 “uses familiar
OT imagery to speak of the blessedness of Christ’s Church” (657). At the foundation of
Davis’s approach to this passage is his commitment to a “New Covenant Hermeneutic.”
As explained more fully below in the discussion of Zech 14:16–19, Davis believes that
when God revealed kingdom promises through the Old Testament prophets, He chose
to veil these prophecies in imagery drawn from the Old Covenant. erefore, today’s
reader must use the New Testament to interpret the mystical language of the Old
Testament, resulting in a gurative interpretation of the prophet’s words rather than a
literal one (15, 182–83).
13 Floyd E. Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1942), 135–36.
14 Ibid., 136.
15 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 213.
16 Ibid.; emphasis original. In a similar way, Mitchell, Smith, and Brewer interpret the
“elderly with canes” as a symbol of Yahweh blessing His people with a multitude of
days, as promised in passages like Exod 20:12, Deut 4:4, Isa 65:20, and Prov 3:2
(Hinckley G. Mitchell, John Merlin Powis Smith, and Julius A. Brewer, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Jonah, ICC [New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912], 207).
17 An alternative amillennial explanation of this passage comes from Anthony Hoekema,
who contends that, rather than predicting an eschatological restoration of Israel,
Zechariah 8 was ful lled literally in 458 BC when Ezra returned from Babylon to
Jerusalem with a number of Jews. According to Hoekema, this passage was designed to
urge even more Babylonian captives to return to Jerusalem (Anthony Hoekema, e
Bible and the Future [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1979], 208). e difficulty
with Hoekema’s view is two-fold: (a) there is simply no evidence that the scene
described in Zech 8:4–5 was ful lled in the return to Jerusalem under Ezra, and (b)
this prophecy is connected to the return of the Lord to Jerusalem in Zech 8:1–3 and 6–
8 and therefore must be eschatological.
18 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 657.
19 is is clear from the focus on the Lord returning to Zion and restoring the nation of
Israel in Zech 8:1–3 and 6–8.
20 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 213.
21 A symbolic approach to this passage is granted here merely for the sake of argument.
In reality, it is difficult to deny the obvious implication that the presence of children in
this scene also indicates the continuation of physical birth, which renders this passage
incompatible with the eternal state.
22 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 213. A connection between Zech 8:4–5 and Exod
20:12 is also made by Mitchell, Smith, and Brewer, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary, 207.
23 As Robert Saucy writes, “e reference to the personal presence of the Messiah (his
feet stand on the Mount of Olives, v. 4) and the overwhelming triumph (cf. vv. 12–15)
show that this passage relates to the triumphant coming (or in the light of the New
Testament, the second coming) of the Messiah” (Robert L. Saucy, e Case for
Progressive Dispensationalism: e Interface Between Dispensational and Non-
Dispensational eology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1993], 239).
24 As Robert Chisholm explains, the temporal relationship between verses 8–11 and
verses 12–15 is not sequential. Before describing the Lord’s destruction of His enemies
in verses 12–15, Zechariah looks ahead to the time aer the battle in verses 8–11 when
Yahweh makes Jerusalem the capital of His worldwide kingdom (Interpreting the Minor
Prophets, 271).
25 Regarding these survivors, some premillennialists see “any who are le of all the
nations” (Zech 14:16) as unbelieving survivors of the nal battle (e.g., Robert H.
Gundry, e Church and the Tribulation: A Biblical Examination of Posttribulationism
[Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1973], 167; Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi, 361; George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1972], 257). For example, according to Merrill, the
survivors of these nations will of necessity come to acknowledge Jesus as King of the
earth and will render signs of outward submission to Him, but inwardly they will
remain unconverted (Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 361–62). But this view
appears difficult to sustain, for as Feinberg explains, “e complete elimination of the
wicked from entrance into the kingdom rests not just on the destruction of the wicked
at the descent of Christ at the Second Advent, but also on the separation of the sheep
from the goats in the judgment that follows (Matt. 25:31–46). While many unbelievers
will be slain at Christ’s return, two judgments follow to root out all who remain” (Paul
D. Feinberg, “e Case for the Pretribulation Rapture Position,” in ree Views on the
Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulation? [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1996],
74; emphasis original). For this reason, it is better to see these survivors as a converted
remnant from the nations which went up against Jerusalem (Barker, “Zechariah,” 831;
Charles L. Feinberg, e Minor Prophets [Chicago: Moody Press, 1990], 343; Klein,
Zechariah, 421; Harold W. Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” in A Case for
Premillennialism: A New Consensus, eds. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend
[Chicago: Moody Press, 1992], 252; Chisholm, Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 275; C.
F. Keil, Minor Prophets, trans. James Martin, Commentary on the Old Testament [repr.,
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996], 10:624) and to see those who refuse to “go up to
Jerusalem to worship the King” (Zech 14:17) as their unbelieving descendants in
subsequent years.
26 As Charles Feinberg notes, “e nations will go up representatively, for even all Israel
never went up to the feasts to the last man” (Lev 23:33–44; Deut 16:13–17) (e Minor
Prophets, 343). According to Klein, the Hebrew verb translated “will go up” ( )
“occurs frequently in the Old Testament to describe a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to
worship. e term occurs in the headings of the Psalms of Ascent (Pss 120–34),
 generally understood to be psalms associated with the journey of the faithful to go to
the temple to worship. Isaiah chose the same verb to signify the many peoples who will
‘go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob’ (Isa 2:3; Mic 4:2).
In light of the widespread association of the verb ‘go up’ with the worship of God in the
Old Testament, Zechariah’s use of this verb for non-Israelites participating in worship
at the temple is particularly emphatic” (Zechariah, 422).
27 In the Old Testament, shutting off rain is commonly portrayed as an act of divine
judgment (1 Kgs 17:1; Hag 1:11; Amos 4:7–8) (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.,
Micah/Nahum/Habakkuk/ Zephaniah/Haggai/Zechariah/Malachi, e Preacher’s
Commentary vol. 23 [Nashville: omas Nelson Publishers, 1992], 443; Klein,
Zechariah, 424). Although the withholding of rain was one of the curses for covenant
disobedience (Lev 26:4; 19–20; Deut 28:12, 24), Merrill’s claim that it functions as a
pars pro toto and therefore represents all the covenant curses in Leviticus 26 and
Deuteronomy 28 is unwarranted (Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 363).
28 Because the word translated “plague” ( ) refers to the death of the rstborn in
Exod 12:13, Eugene Merrill concludes that the plague in Zech 14:18 refers to
punishment by death (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 364). As Klein notes, this meaning
is possible, but the word does not always signify capital punishment. “Moreover, the
punishment meted out to the other nations for not commemorating the Feast of
Tabernacles in v. 17 does not appear to be death” (Klein, Zechariah, 425).
29 Zechariah 14 speci cally names Egypt, which historically has received so little rainfall
and therefore has relied instead on irrigation water from the Nile River. Several
interpreters believe Egypt is singled out to make it clear that no nation will escape
divine judgment for its refusal to worship, not even those that don’t seem dependent
on the rain that God will withhold (Klein, Zechariah, 424; Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi, 364; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Preaching and Teaching the Last ings: Old
Testament Eschatology for the Life of the Church [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2011], 140; Barker, “Zechariah,” 696). Regardless of the precise reason, the passage
makes it clear that this divine punishment will ultimately come upon all the nations
“who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths” (vv. 18b, 19c).
30 Klein, Zechariah, 422. As Mitchell, Smith, and Brewer write, “A refusal to celebrate it
would argue an ingratitude which could not be more appropriately punished than by
withholding rain, which began to fall soon aer the feast of tabernacles, and thus
preventing a normal harvest the following year” (A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary, 354; also Chisholm, Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 272; Klein,
Zechariah, 423–24).
31 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 234. According to Saucy, “at sin is present
during the Messiah’s reign is evident in his settling disputes among the nations (cf. Isa
2:4) and in the possibility of punishing the disobedient (Zech 14:16–19). But that sin
will never be able to thwart the righteous, powerful reign of the Messiah.” As Blaising
and Bock write, the tension between the King and the nations in the millennial
kingdom will be “a tension which is easily suppressed (Zech. 14:9, 16–21; Isa. 11:4; cf.
Ps. 2)” (Progressive Dispensationalism, 274).
32 Vlach, “e Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” 239–40; Craig A. Blaising and
Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993),
227; Wayne Grudem, Systematic eology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1994), 1129; Craig A. Blaising, “Premillennialism,” in
ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing, 1999), 202. According to Feinberg, the outward conformity of
unbelievers to Christ in the millennial kingdom is described in Ps 66:3b: “Because of
the greatness of Your power Your enemies will give feigned obedience to you” (e
Minor Prophets, 344).
33 Grudem, Systematic eology, 1129; also Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 239.
34 Grudem, Systematic eology, 1129; Vlach, “e Kingdom of God and the
Millennium,” 239–40.
35 Grudem, Systematic eology, 1129; also Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 239–40.
36 Vlach, “e Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” 239–40.
37 Ibid., 240.
38 Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: e Amillennial Alternative (Ross-shire, Scotland:
Mentor, 2013), 432.
39 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 383–84. Many amillennialists mention Zechariah 14
and yet fail to comment on the premillennial argument made from verses 16–19 (e.g.,
Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, expanded
ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013], 92, 119; Storms, Kingdom Come, 345, 432;
Robert B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond,
ed. Darrell L. Bock [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1999], 98; Hoekema, e
Bible and the Future, 188), whereas others ignore it altogether (e.g., Cornelis P.
Venema, e Promise of the Future [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2000]). At the same
time, most amillennialists address passages like Zech 14:16–19 indirectly by explaining
their hermeneutical approach to Old Testament prophecy in general (e.g., Strimple,
“Amillennialism,” 84–100; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 83–94; Storms,
Kingdom Come, 15–42). Representative of the amillennial approach are the words of
Riddlebarger: “e Old Testament prophecies regarding Jerusalem and the mountain
of the Lord are ful lled in Christ’s church. e promise of a land, as we have seen, will
be ful lled in a new heaven and a new earth in the consummation. Likewise, the New
Testament taught that Christ is the new temple and that a new order of
commemoration involving the ceremonies typical of the earthly temple can only
commemorate the types and shadows, not the reality” (A Case for Amillennialism, 93).
40 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 383.
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid.; see 218–20, where Davis discusses the contradictions he sees in the literal
reading of these passages.
43 Ibid., 383.
44 Ibid., 218.
45 Ibid., 219.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid., 383.
50 Ibid.
51 Henry A. Virkler and Karelynne Gerber Ayayo, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes
of Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 172. Grant
Osborne describes it as seeking a “language of equivalents” (Grant R. Osborne, e
Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
[Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991], 218–19).
52 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Old Testament eology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 1978), 244.
53 Virkler and Ayayo, Hermeneutics, 172.
54 Walter C. Kaiser, Micah—Malachi, e Preacher’s Commentary vol. 23 (Nashville:
omas Nelson Publishers, 1992), 416–17; Klein, Zechariah, 354; Virkler and Ayayo,
Hermeneutics, 172; Mark F. Rooker, “Evidence from Ezekiel,” in A Case for
Premillennialism: A New Consensus, eds. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 133. e rationale behind this approach is that if God
had revealed the speci c eschatological referent that will eventually ful ll the prophecy
—the approach of Israel’s enemies in armored tanks or F-16 ghter jets, for example—
neither the prophet nor his original audience would have any understanding of what
was being communicated (cf. Virkler and Ayayo, Hermeneutics, 172). At this point, an
amillennialist might raise the objection that the premillennialist is inconsistent in
taking the analogical approach with horses in Zechariah 12 and 14 but not with the
prophetic description of everlasting life in Isa 65:20. e difference is that Isaiah’s
original audience was perfectly capable of understanding the promise that death will
be abolished (Isa 25:8), but Zechariah’s audience would have no hope of
comprehending a reference to 21st-century military technology. In addition, the
amillennial explanation of how Isa 65:20 communicates the abolition of death is
questionable at best, but the reference to the war horse as an elite military weapon in
Zech 12:4 communicates with clarity.
55 Klein, Zechariah, 355.
56 Ibid., 354; Virkler and Ayayo, Hermeneutics, 172.
57 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 383.
58 Ibid., 384; also see Jonathan Menn, Biblical Eschatology (Eugene, OR: Resource
Publications, 2013), 446–47.
59 Klein, Zechariah, 422.
60 Keil, Minor Prophets, 10:625.
61 Merrill F. Unger, Zechariah (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1963), 265;
Feinberg, e Minor Prophets, 343.
62 I am indebted to Michael Vlach for this observation in personal conversation.
63 Some premillennialists deny that the ful llment of this prophecy will necessarily
include animal sacri ces or the celebration of the Feast of Booths. According to Wayne
Grudem, for example, even though Zech 14:16–21 describes these blessings in terms of
 Old Covenant sacri ces and an Old Covenant festival, this was the only kind of
terminology and description available to the people of that day; “but the New
Testament can allow for greater (spiritual) ful llment of a number of these items”
(Systematic eology, 1130). e rationale for this view is that the Old Testament
prophets oen described the future in terms that were familiar and easily understood
by the original audience even though their speci c eschatological referents would not
coincide with their literal meaning. is is oen seen as the only effective way for the
prophet to describe future realities to a people who were limited by their own
immediate context. For example, in denying the existence of animal sacri ces in the
millennial kingdom of Ezekiel 40–48, premillennialist Mark Rooker asks: “How else
could worship have been described?” (“Evidence from Ezekiel,” 133). According to this
approach, the description of Israel and the nations traveling to Jerusalem to celebrate
the Feast of Booths in Zechariah 14 need only be understood as the people of God
worshiping the Lord in the millennial kingdom.
e problem with this view is that the prophet could have portrayed the people of
God worshiping the Lord in a way that was clear and easily understood by his original
audience even without using terminology that includes the celebration of the Feast of
Booths. For this reason, it is difficult to understand why the prophet would
unnecessarily describe millennial worship in a potentially misleading way. At the same
time, it is possible that the Feast of Booths will take on additional nuances of
signi cance in the millennial kingdom because of the historical-redemptive context of
its celebration, but this recognition does not deny the literal ful llment of Zech 14:16–
21.
64 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 384.
65 Vern Poythress, “Response to Robert L. Saucy’s Paper,” GTJ 10, no. 2 (Fall 1989): 158.
66 Ibid.
67 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 384.
68 Ibid., 382. According to Davis, understanding “the meaning of the mysterious
prophecy” involves seeking to discern “the deep, NT meaning of Zechariah’s words”
(402).
69 Ibid., 382.
70 Ibid., 384; also see 15, 182–83. Davis refers to the New Covenant Hermeneutic as “one
of Christ’s most precious gis to the church” (183). Apart from this hermeneutic, says
Davis, the church is unable to understand the Old Testament in general and the
kingdom promises in particular; but with it “the Great End Time Debate is fully
resolved once and for all.”
71 Ibid., 15.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid.
74 Ibid., 402–3.
75 Ibid., 403; emphasis original. According to another amillennialist, “We cannot fully
understand why the writer cites the Feast of Booths, but it is likely that this feast,
which recalls the wilderness experience, functions as a motif for the childlike
 obedience that sometimes marked the Israelites’ response to God in their earliest
history” (omas Edward McComiskey, “Zechariah,” in e Minor Prophets: An
Exegetical and Expository Commentary, ed. omas Edward McComiskey [Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 1998], 3:1242). But exactly how this motif symbolizes childlike
obedience is neither immediately clear nor explained by the one who makes this
assertion.
76 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 403.
77 Ibid.
78 Ibid.
79 Grudem, Systematic eology, 1129–30.
80 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 403.
81 As noted above, the temporal relationship between verses 8–11 and verses 12–15 is not
sequential. Before describing the Lord’s destruction of His enemies in verses 12–15,
Zechariah looks ahead to the time aer the battle in verses 8–11 when Yahweh makes
Jerusalem the capital of His worldwide kingdom (Chisholm, Interpreting the Minor
Prophets, 271).
82 e temporal sequence between verses 12–15 and 16–19 is not simply assumed but
rather is required by the passage itself for two reasons: (1) those punished in verses 16–
19 are described as survivors of the battle in verses 12–15, and (2) those punished in
the judgment in verses 16–19 are judged for their refusal to worship the Lord who
reigns because He defeated the enemies of Israel and established Himself as king over
the earth in verses 1–15.
83 McComiskey, “Zechariah,” 1242. Even premillennialist George Klein is open to this
possibility, stating that it is unclear whether the circumstances of Zech 14:17 are real or
hypothetical (Zechariah, 424).
 Chapter 5

e Intermediate Kingdom
in Isaiah 24:21–23

INTRODUCTION

The prophecy in Isaiah 24:21–23 provides evidence for the messianic

kingdom of premillennialism in a unique way. In contrast to the Old
Testament passages discussed in chapters 2–4, Isaiah 24:21–23 indicates the
existence of an intermediate kingdom by explicitly naming a gap of time—
identi ed as “many days” in verse 22—which takes place between the
Second Coming and the nal state of immortality (Isa 25:6–8). According to
Isaiah 24, this intervening gap of time will occur between two stages of
divine punishment—one that occurs at the Day of the Lord (v. 21) and one
that occurs aer “many days” of God’s enemies being con ned in prison (v.
22). ese two phases of divine judgment, separated by a lengthy period of
imprisonment, can be seen clearly in Isaiah 24:21–23:

So it will happen in that day, that the Lord will punish the host of
heaven on high, and the kings of the earth on earth. ey will be
gathered together like prisoners in the dungeon, and will be con ned
in prison; and aer many days they will be punished. en the moon
will be abashed and the sun ashamed, for the Lord of hosts will reign
on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and His glory will be before His
elders (Isa 24:21–23).
According to premillennialists, this gap of time in Isaiah 24:22 represents an
intermediate kingdom between the present age and the eternal state.

THE PREMILLENNIAL ARGUMENT FROM ISAIAH 24:21–23

is prophecy of divine punishment is found in the immediate context of
Isaiah 24–27, which is preceded by a series of judgments against the nations
in Isaiah 13–23. Unlike the oracles in Isaiah 13–23, however, the divine
judgment in Isaiah 24 is universal, making no reference to speci c nations
or historical events and eventually extending beyond the earth.1 As Robert
B. Chisholm observes, “e litany of divine judgment on the nations of
Isaiah’s day (chapters 13–23) forms a tting prelude to chapters 24–27,
which depict God’s culminating worldwide judgment and the establishment
of his earthly kingdom.”2
Isaiah 24 begins with a thesis statement—“Behold, the Lord lays the
earth waste, devastates it, distorts its surface and scatters its inhabitants” (Isa
24:1)—and the remainder of the chapter details this divine destruction of
the earth and the enemies of God (Isa 24:2–20). A careful comparison
between this passage and the Apocalypse demonstrates that the earthly
destruction of Isaiah 24:1–20 corresponds to the global judgments of
Revelation 6–19.3 In fact, Isaiah 24–27 has oen been called “e Little
Apocalypse” because of its resemblance to the book of Revelation in both its
literary style and its emphasis on the eschatological judgment of God and
establishment of His eternal kingdom.4
Aer describing the destruction of earth in Isaiah 24:1–20, the prophet
identi es this judgment as the eschatological Day of the Lord—indicated by
the introductory formula “in that day” ( ) in verse 215—and
broadens its scope to include both “the kings of the earth on earth” and “the
hosts of heaven on high” (Isa 24:21).6 According to Isaiah, all the enemies of
Yahweh, whether earthly or heavenly powers, will be punished by God on
the Day of the Lord. As Herbert Wolf explains, “To complete the judgment
of the earth, God must deal with the evil forces that foment rebellion against
Him, namely Satan and his army of angels.”7
In Isaiah 24:22, the prophet describes the rst part of this divine
judgment as con nement in prison: “ey will be gathered together like
prisoners in the dungeon, and will be con ned in prison” (Isa 24:22ab).8
According to Isaiah, this imprisonment of God’s earthly and heavenly
enemies will continue for “many days” ( ), an inde nite expression
used elsewhere in reference to a very long period of time (Jer 35:7), even
hundreds of years (2 Chron 15:3; Hos 3:4–5). en, aer this lengthy
con nement of “many days,” they will experience the nal judgment: “and
aer many days they will be punished” (Isa 24:22c). With the defeat of this
evil cosmic alliance completed, the Lord will now reign supreme: “en the
moon will be abashed and the sun ashamed, for the Lord of hosts will reign
on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and His glory will be before His elders”
(Isa 24:23).
e eschatological judgment of God’s enemies, then, will take place in
two stages separated by a lengthy period of con nement in prison.
According to premillennialists, the “many days” of this imprisonment
coincides with the “thousand years” of Revelation 20:1–6, and therefore
Isaiah 24:22 necessitates an intermediate kingdom between the Day of the
Lord (Isa 24:1–22b) and the nal state of immortality where sin and death
have been abolished (Isa 25:6–8).9 In this way, the “many days” of Isaiah
24:22 and “thousand years” of Revelation 20:1–6 begin with the defeat and
imprisonment of earthly and heavenly rulers, and they end with the nal
judgment upon them aer this intervening period of incarceration.10 As
Craig Blaising writes:

e many days of imprisonment between the coming of God in the

Day of the Lord and the punishment aer which the Lord reigns in
glory greater than sun or moon bear a correspondence to the
millennial period in Revelation 20, which also follows the coming of
the Lord in the Day of the Lord (Rev. 6–19) and transpires between
the imprisonment of the devil (20:1–3) and his future punishment
(20:7–10).11

To support this argument, Michael Vlach highlights several key parallels

between Isaiah 24:21–23 and Revelation 19 and 20:12

Isaiah 24:21–23 Revelation 19–20

“kings of the earth” who are “kings of the earth” who are
opposed to God (v. 21) opposed to God (19:19)
kings of earth are defeated (19:21)
kings of earth and host of heaven
Satan is bound and incarcerated
are incarcerated (v. 21)
(20:1–3)
imprisonment in a dungeon which imprisonment in the abyss which is
is called a “prison” (v. 22) called a “prison” (20:1–3, 7)
unbelievers and Satan sentenced to
nal punishment takes place “aer
the lake of re aer a “thousand
many days” (v. 22)
years” (20:7–15)
the Lord will reign for a thousand
the Lord will reign as king (v. 23)
years (20:6)

Harmonizing the prophetic details in Isaiah 24 and Revelation 6–22

yields the following chronology of eschatological events:

e Divine Judgment of the Earth (Isa 24:1–20; Rev 6–19)

e Second Coming of Christ (Rev 19:11–18)
e Defeat of the Kings of the Earth (Isa 24:21a; Rev 19:19–21)
e Imprisonment of the Kings of the Earth (Isa 24:22ab; cf.
Luke 16:19–31)
e Imprisonment of Satan and His Demons (Isa 24:22ab; Rev
20:1–3)
e Intermediate Kingdom of “Many Days”/“1,000 Years” (Isa
24:22c; Rev 20:1-6)
e Final Judgment of Satan and His Demons (Isa 24:22d; Rev
20:7–10)
e Final Judgment of the Kings of the Earth (Isa 24:22d; Rev
20:11–15)
e Eternal State of the New Heavens and Earth (Isa 24:23; Rev
21–22)

e reason that the “many days” of Isaiah 24:22 requires an intermediate

kingdom is because it represents a lengthy period of time which separates
the Second Coming of Christ from the nal judgment and eternal state.13
is intermediate con nement of “many days” corresponds to the millennial
kingdom of premillennialism, coinciding with the thousand-year
incarceration of Satan and reign of Jesus Christ in Revelation 20.
In contrast, this intervening period of time cannot be harmonized with
the two-age model of amillennialism, which sees the nal judgment taking
place at the Second Coming rather than aer a gap of “many days” in which
the enemies of God are imprisoned. Isaiah 24:21–23 not only suggests the
existence of an intermediate kingdom between the present age and the
eternal state, but it poses a seemingly insurmountable problem for
amillennial eschatology.

THE AMILLENNIAL RESPONSE

Unfortunately, most amillennialists neither discuss Isaiah 24:21–23 nor
respond to the premillennial argument above.14 Craig Blaising speci cally
faults amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger for his failure to discuss Isaiah 24:21–
23 and its eschatological implications:

Riddlebarger makes no reference to Isaiah 24 in his brief discussion

of the Day of the Lord … and only mentions Isaiah 25 in relation to
resurrection…. So, he fails to note not only the structure of
imprisonment and future punishment for Isaiah’s teaching on the
coming kingdom but also the important intertextual bearing this
passage has for Revelation 19–21.15

One of the few amillennial responses comes from Dean Davis, who raises
three objections to the premillennial interpretation of this passage. First,
according to Davis, Isaiah 24:21–23 says nothing whatsoever about the
Messiah, much less His coming in glory.16 e implication of this objection
is that the imprisonment of the earthly and heavenly powers in Isaiah 24:21–
22 does not take place at the Second Coming, and therefore the “many days”
of their incarceration does not coincide with the intermediate kingdom of
premillennialism.17
 e problem with this objection is that even though Isaiah 24 does not
explicitly mention the return of Messiah, it does indeed describe the
eschatological Day of the Lord, which obviously includes the Second
Coming of Christ.18 is is clear from (a) the emphasis on the eschatological
judgment of God and establishment of His kingdom in Isaiah 24–27;19 (b)
the description of the worldwide judgment of the earth in Isaiah 24:1–20; (c)
the introductory formula “in that day” in Isaiah 24:21;20 and (d) the reign of
the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem in Isaiah 24:23. For this reason, the attempt to
separate Isaiah 24:21–22 from the Second Coming of Christ falls short, and
this rst objection fails to undermine the argument for an intermediate
kingdom.
Second, according to Davis, Isaiah 24:21–22a speaks of the incarceration
of the evil hosts of heaven and the impenitent kings of earth, but Revelation
20 refers only to the imprisonment of Satan and “says nothing at all about a
divine judgment of men, let alone kings.”21 But this objection is simply
untrue. In Revelation 20:11–15, aer the thousand-year reign of Christ, the
unbelieving dead are raised to stand before the Great White rone, being
judged according to their deeds and cast into the Lake of Fire. is divine
judgment of human beings coincides with the nal punishment of the kings
of the earth as described in Isaiah 24:22. For this reason, it is difficult to
understand how one could assert that Revelation 20 “says nothing at all
about a divine judgment of men.”
Perhaps Davis means that Revelation 20 makes no explicit reference to
the incarceration of human kings as described in Isaiah 24:22. But even so, it
is not necessary for Isaiah 24 and Revelation 20 to include all of the same
details in their respective eschatological accounts for the premillennial
interpretation to remain valid. As demonstrated in the harmonized
chronology above, the differences between the two passages are
complementary rather than contradictory. In fact, the details in Isaiah and
Revelation are not only compatible, but together they provide a fuller picture
of the divine judgment of “the host of heaven on high” and “the kings of the
earth on earth.” e premillennial interpretation introduces no
contradiction between Isaiah and Revelation, and therefore this objection
fails to weaken the argument for an intermediate kingdom in Isaiah 24:22.
 ird, according to Davis, Isaiah 24 teaches that the Lord’s reign on Zion
in verse 23 will take place aer the judgments of verses 21–22, and therefore
verse 23 must describe the eternal state rather than the alleged intermediate
kingdom of premillennialism.22 Davis highlights this as a problem for
premillennialists because they interpret Isaiah 24:23 as the millennial reign
in Jerusalem (Rev 20) rather than the eternal reign in the New Jerusalem
(Rev 21–22).23
In response, the premillennial argument for an intermediate kingdom in
Isaiah 24:22 does not depend on interpreting verse 23 as a reference to the
millennial reign of Christ. Some premillennialists see Isaiah 24:23 as a
reference to the millennial kingdom;24 others see it as a reference to the
eternal state;25 and still others believe it encompasses both the millennial
kingdom and the eternal state.26 All three of these views are compatible with
the premillennial argument from Isaiah 24, because none of them
undermines the primary point that the gap of “many days” in verse 22 can
only be explained as an intermediate period of time between the present age
and the eternal state.

THE AMILLENNIAL VIEW OF ISAIAH 24:21–23

Amillennialist Dean Davis refers to Isaiah 24:21–23 as a “short but
challenging” prophecy, conceding that “it is indeed difficult to be dogmatic
about the exact meaning” of this passage, which he calls “mysterious.”27 At
the same time, Davis asserts that applying the New Covenant Hermeneutic
to Isaiah 24:21–23 gets the interpreter “in the ballpark” and opens up “viable
interpretations that harmonize well with NT teaching about the nature and
structure of the Kingdom of God.”28 In his discussion of Isaiah 24:21–23,
Davis suggests two such interpretations of this passage, both of which see
the “many days” in verse 22 as a reference to the present age.29
First, according to Davis, one could argue that Isaiah 24:21–22 speaks of
the punishment meted out by God through the long “day” of His heavenly
reign in the present age. is punishment consists of God casting impenitent
kings and evil spirits into Hades where they are reserved for nal judgment
(Luke 8:31; Col 2:15; 1 Pet 3:18–20; 2 Pet 2:4).30 With this view, the nal
punishment in verse 22b occurs when Christ casts Death and Hades into the
Lake of Fire in Revelation 20:14, which leads to the advent of the new
heavens and new earth as typologically depicted in Isaiah 24:23.31
Second, according to Davis, it could be that Isaiah 24:21–22 refers
exclusively to the nal judgment which takes place at the Second Coming of
Christ.32 In this view, verse 22b is not describing a judgment which is
different from (and subsequent to) the judgment in verse 21. Instead, verse
22b is simply affirming yet again that the nal judgment will indeed occur,
although not until aer “many days” of divine forbearance while the
kingdom advances through the preaching of the gospel during the present
age.33 According to Davis, this interpretation ts well with the remainder of
the chapter because it makes verses 21–22 the natural and dramatic climax
of all that precedes it.34

AN EVALUATION OF THE AMILLENNIAL VIEW

e primary difficulty with Davis’s explanations of the passage is that both
proposals necessitate interpreting the “many days” as a reference to the
present age, which is completely foreign to the immediate context. As Davis
acknowledges, not only is Isaiah 24:21–23 one in a long line of prophecies
devoted to the eschatological judgments of God (Isa 24–27), but it is also
immediately preceded by a description of the nal destruction of the earth
(Isa 24:1–20).35 erefore, according to both interpretations suggested by
Davis, the “many days” of Isaiah 24:22 refers to a period of time which takes
place prior to every other event described in the entirety of Isaiah 24–27.
e weakness of Davis’s view is re ected in the following chronological
outlines of his two proposed interpretations of Isaiah 24:

Amillennial Proposal #1
Second Coming/Final Destruction of the Earth (vv. 17–20)
Judgment of God’s Enemies in the Present Age (vv. 21–22ab)36
Final Judgment of God’s Enemies (v. 22c)
Divine Reign of the Eternal State (v. 23)

Amillennial Proposal #2
 Second Coming/Final Destruction of the Earth (vv. 17–20)
Final Judgment of God’s Enemies (v. 21)
Parenthetical Reference to the Present Age (v. 22ab)
Final Judgment of God’s Enemies (v. 22c)
Divine Reign of the Eternal State (v. 23)

ere is simply nothing in the immediate or broader context indicating that

verse 22 is a reference to the present age. Not only is this interpretation
foreign to the context, but it is difficult to understand what contribution a
parenthetical reference to the present age makes to the prophet’s description
of the nal judgment in Isaiah 24.37
In contrast, the premillennial interpretation sees the incarceration of
God’s enemies for “many days” as the rst stage of the two-phase judgment
described in Isaiah 24:21–22. e premillennial view that the “many days” of
Isaiah 24:22 corresponds to an intermediate kingdom ts the context
perfectly:

e Premillennial View of Isaiah 24

Second Coming/Final Destruction of the Earth (vv. 17–20)
Initial Judgment of God’s Enemies (v. 21)
Lengthy Incarceration During Intermediate Kingdom (v. 22ab)
Final Judgment of God’s Enemies (v. 22c)
Divine Reign of the Eternal State (v. 23)

An additional problem with the rst view suggested by Davis concerns

the reference to “the kings of the earth” in Isaiah 24:21. According to Davis’s
rst proposal, Isaiah 24:21–22 refers to divine punishment throughout the
present age in which God casts unrepentant kings and evil spirits into Hades
to await the nal judgment. To support this interpretation, Davis cites Luke
8:31, Colossians 2:15, 1 Peter 3:18–20, and 2 Peter 2:4, but none of those
passages refer to casting human beings—much less earthly kings—into
Hades. More importantly, this interpretation provides no adequate
explanation as to why “the kings of the earth” are highlighted over and above
other unbelievers who die and face a similar “imprisonment” throughout
the present age. In contrast, the reference to kings ts perfectly within the
premillennial view of Isaiah 24:21–23 because of the parallel with Revelation
19:19, where “the kings of the earth” wage war against the returning Messiah
and are decisively defeated by Him.
An additional problem with the second view concerns the imprisonment
in Isaiah 24:22. According to Davis, this verse refers to the “many days” of
divine forbearance while the kingdom advances through the preaching of
the gospel in the present age, but he fails to explain the signi cance of the
imprisonment which takes place during this same time period. Because
Isaiah 24:22 says nothing about divine forbearance during gospel
proclamation in the present age—and because the primary point of the verse
is the imprisonment of God’s enemies—Davis’s interpretation suffers from
the weakness of ignoring what Isaiah actually says and focusing instead on
what he does not say. Any credible interpretation of Isaiah 24:21–23 must
include an explanation of the signi cance of the imprisonment in verse 22,
and Davis’s second proposal fails to provide one.38

CONCLUSION
In the Old Testament passages considered in chapters 2–5, the prophets
looked ahead to the glorious reign of the coming Messiah. During this time,
the Messiah will reign as King over the entire world (Ps 72:2–4, 7–8, 12;
Zech 14:9)—all the kings of the earth will bow down before Him (Ps 72:11),
all the nations of the earth will serve Him (Ps 72:11; Zech 14:16), and all the
peoples of the earth will be blessed by the exercise of His rule (Ps 72:7, 16–
17). Knowledge of the Lord will ll the earth (Isa 11:9), and the whole world
will be lled with His glory (Ps 72:19). He will reign in peace, justice,
righteousness, and faithfulness (Isa 11:3–5), resulting in longevity of life (Isa
65:20, 22) and lasting peace and harmony among the nations of the world
(Zech 8:4–5; Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3; Isa 11:6–9). e kingdom reign of Messiah
portrayed in these passages clearly transcends what takes place in the
present age and will not be ushered in until the Second Coming of Jesus
Christ (Zech 14:4, 7, 9).
But these passages also contain features of the coming kingdom which
are incompatible with the perfection of the eternal state. For example, this
kingdom reign of Messiah will include the existence of the poor (Ps 72:13;
Isa 11:4), the wicked (Isa 11:4), the needy (Ps 72:4, 12–13), the afflicted (Ps
72:2, 4, 12; Isa 11:4), enemies of God (Ps 72:9; Isa 11:4), and victims of
violence and oppression (Ps 72:4, 14). It will include physical birth and
physical death (Isa 65:20), distinctions between the young and the elderly
(Zech 8:4–5), and physical weakness due to old age (Zech 8:4). e nations
will learn the ways of the Lord (Isa 2:3; Mic 4:2); disputes will continue to
arise between them (Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3); and those who refuse to worship the
King will be punished by the Lord (Zech 14:17–19).
is portrayal of the coming kingdom reveals a certain amount of
tension. e reign of Messiah will be characterized by peace, righteousness,
and universal blessing, and yet human sin will continue to exist, sometimes
requiring divine intervention to bring deliverance to the afflicted and
judgment to the rebellious. ese kingdom prophecies are not being
presently ful lled, and they are not compatible with the eternal state. For
this reason, they necessitate a future stage in the history of redemption
which is far greater than the present age but which does not see the removal
of all sin and death from the earth.39
In addition to these indications of an intermediate phase of the
kingdom, the prophet Isaiah refers to a lengthy period of time that will
separate the return of Christ from the nal judgment of God’s enemies (Isa
24:21–23). is intervening gap of “many days” between the Day of the Lord
and the eternal state coincides perfectly with an initial phase of the kingdom
between the Second Coming and the new heavens and earth. Moreover, this
lengthy gap of time is impossible to accommodate apart from the existence
of an intermediate kingdom.
e key that brings all of these features together is the explicit New
Testament revelation of a millennial kingdom between the Second Coming
and the Final Judgment.40 In other words, what is strongly implied in the
Old Testament prophets is clari ed and made explicit in the Book of
Revelation, where the apostle John reveals a thousand-year earthly reign of
the Lord Jesus Christ (Rev 20:1–6).41 is intermediate kingdom in
Revelation 20 separates the Second Coming of Revelation 19 and the eternal
state of Revelation 21–22, coinciding with the “many days” of Isaiah 24:22
and ful lling the prophecies in Psalm 72:1–20, Isaiah 2:1–3//Micah 4:2–4,
Isaiah 11:1–9, Isaiah 65:20, Zechariah 8:4–5, and Zechariah 14:16–19. In
contrast to the two-age model of amillennialism, the Old Testament
provides clear evidence of an intermediate kingdom in which Jesus will
reign upon the earth between the present age and the eternal state.

1 Geoffrey W. Grogan, “Isaiah,” in EBC, rev. ed., eds. Tremper Longman III and David E.
Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 6:616.
2 Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002),
64.
3 Michael J. Vlach, “e Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” MSJ 23, no. 2 (Fall
2012): 234; Robert D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago: Moody Press,
1954), 50. According to Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, “e Day of the Lord in
Isaiah 24 is given expanded treatment in Revelation 6–19” (Craig A. Blaising and
Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993],
275).
4 Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets, 64–65; Vlach, “e Kingdom of God and the
Millennium,” 227.
5 e formula “in that day” occurs seven times in Isaiah 24–27 (24:21; 25:9; 26:1; 27:1, 2,
12, 13), “each time enlarging on some aspect of the general situation sketched in 24:1–
20 and offering a balanced presentation of the theme” (J. Alec Motyer, e Prophecy of
Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993],
205).
6 As Gary Smith notes, “e heavenly hosts could refer to the stars and planets (40:26;
45:12; Ps. 33:6), but it seems more likely that this is a reference to enemy angelic beings
(2 Kgs 22:19; Job 1:6; Dan 4:32; 8:10; 10:13), not inanimate objects” (Gary V. Smith,
Isaiah 1–39, NAC vol. 15A [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2007], 424). Geoffrey
Grogan similarly argues that the concept of punishment implies personal beings and
therefore the reference is probably to fallen angels (Grogan, “Isaiah,” 623). In addition,
the parallelism between the two halves of Isa 24:21 “invites the comparison between
the defeat of the powerful evil rulers on earth (21b) and the powerful rulers in heaven
(21a)” (Smith, Isaiah 1–39, 424; also see F. Delitzsch, Isaiah, trans. James Martin,
Commentary on the Old Testament [repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996], 7:282).
7 Herbert M. Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah: e Suffering and Glory of the Messiah (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1985), 139–40. According to Robert Chisholm, “In the
progress of biblical revelation, one discovers that the driving force behind this
coalition is none other than Satan, whose defeat and imprisonment the Apostle John
describes (see Rev. 20:2–3)” (Handbook on the Prophets, 67).
8 e word translated “dungeon” ( ) in verse 22 literally refers to a cistern, but it is
oen used metaphorically to signify the place of the dead (Ps 28:1; 30:3; 40:2; 88:4;
143:7; Prov 1:12; Isa 14:15; 38:18; Ezek 26:20; 31:14, 16) (Bryan E. Beyer and Eugene
H. Merrill,“ ,” in NIDOTTE, 1:620–21; William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: Based upon the Lexical Work of Ludwig Koehler
 and Walter Baumgartner [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1972], 36; Ludwig
Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, HALOT, 1:116). e word translated “prison” (
) refers to a prison or dungeon (Isa 42:7; Ps 142:8) (Holladay, A Concise Hebrew
and Aramaic Lexicon, 203; Koehler and Baumgartner, HALOT, 1:604), and in Isa 24:22
it refers to the subterranean prison into which the rebellious human leaders and the
superterrestrial evil powers will be con ned (A. H. Konkel, “ ,” in NIDOTTE,
2:996). According to Craig Blaising, “A parallel can be found in 1 Enoch 10, where
Azazel is bound and imprisoned for a period of time prior to the nal, eternal
judgment and new earth conditions” (Craig A. Blaising, “Premillennialism,” in ree
Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock [Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing], 203; also see Konkel, “ ,” 2:996).
9 Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 31–32, 50–52; Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 203–4;
Vlach, “e Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” 234–36; Craig A. Blaising, “e
Kingdom that Comes with Jesus: Premillennialism and the Harmony of Scripture,” in
e Return of Christ: A Premillennial Perspective, eds. David L. Allen and Steve W.
Lemke (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2011), 145–46, 158; Alva J. McClain, e
Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God (Winona Lake, IN:
BMH Books, 1959), 215–16, 494; Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism,
274–75; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., e Christian and the “Old” Testament (Pasadena:
William Carey Library, 1998), 138; Nathaniel West, e ousand Years in Both
Testaments (Fincastle, VA: Scripture Truth Book Company, 1889), 35–49; Chisholm,
Handbook on the Prophets, 67. According to Blaising, “e rst stage of this judgment
is described in Isaiah 24 as the coming Day of the Lord. While that judgment is
catastrophic, it results in an ‘imprisonment’ of some who will subsequently be
‘punished’ aer ‘many days’ (Isa 24:21–22). Aer this latter punishment death will be
abolished (Isa 25:6–8).… e latter punishment, then, separates two phases of the
coming rule. Since the removal of death is relegated to the latter phase, death is still
present during the earlier phase, the time of the imprisonment” (“e Kingdom that
Comes with Jesus,” 145–46).
10 McClain, e Greatness of the Kingdom, 215–16, 494. According to Blaising, because
this nal judgment separates two phases of the coming kingdom—and because the
removal of death is relegated to the latter phase (Isa 25:6–8)—death must still be
present during the earlier phase of “many days” when the enemies of God are
imprisoned (“e Kingdom that Comes with Jesus,” 145–46). is coincides well with
Isa 65:20 which indicates the existence of death in the intermediate kingdom (see
chapter 3).
11 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 203.
12 Vlach, “e Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” 235.
13 According to amillennialist Meredith Kline, the repetition of the verb “punish” in Isa
24:21–22 forms an inclusio and therefore indicates not only that the same punishment
is in view in both verses, but also that “aer many days” in verse 22 is equivalent to “in
that day” in verse 21 (Meredith G. Kline, “Death, Leviathan, and Martyrs: Isaiah 24:1–
27:1,” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, ed. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Ronald R.
 Youngblood [Chicago: Moody Press, 1986], 246). e problem with Kline’s
interpretation is that the phrase “aer many days” simply does not mean the same
thing as the phrase “in that day,” and insisting that the two are equivalent effectively
strips the former phrase of its unambiguous meaning. Kline’s attempt to eliminate the
concept of a lengthy period of time from the designation “many days” should be
rejected as an obvious departure from the actual words of the prophet.
14 For example, neither this passage nor the premillennial argument from it are discussed
by Oswald T. Allis (Prophecy and the Church [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, 1945), Floyd E. Hamilton (e Basis of Millennial Faith [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1942]), Anthony Hoekema (Anthony Hoekema, e Bible and
the Future [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1979]), Cornelis Venema (e
Promise of the Future), Kim Riddlebarger (A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding
the End Times, expanded ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013]), or Sam Storms
(Kingdom Come: e Amillennial Alternative [Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2013]).
15 Blaising, “e Kingdom that Comes with Jesus,” 146.
16 Dean Davis, e High King of Heaven: Discovering the Master Keys to the Great End
Time Debate (Enumclaw, WA: WinePress Publishing, 2014), 292.
17 Davis does not spell out this implication in his objection, but this appears to be his
argument. If not, it is difficult to understand the point he is trying to make with this
observation.
18 Davis appears to acknowledge this, noting that Isa 24:21–23 (a) is found “in the midst
[of] a long string of prophecies devoted to the end-time judgments of God (Isaiah
24:1–27:13)”; (b) is immediately preceded by a description of “the nal destruction of
the earth” in verses 17–20; and (c) is introduced “by the telltale phrase ‘In that Day’” in
verse 21 (e High King of Heaven, 291). Elsewhere Davis states that “the Day of the
LORD will occur at the Parousia of the High King of Heaven … when he descends from
heaven in power and great glory to consummate Salvation History” (136; emphasis
original; also see 250). For this reason, it is difficult to understand why Davis would
suggest that Isa 24:21–23 is separated from the Second Coming of Christ. In fact, one
of the two interpretations of this passage proposed by Davis sees Isa 24:21–22 as a
reference to the nal judgment, which takes place at the Second Coming of Christ
according to his amillennial view (292).
19 See Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah, 137–46; Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets, 64–70.
20 See the six other uses of the same phrase “in that day” in the immediate context (Isa
25:9; 26:1; 27:1, 2, 12, 13). According to Wolf, this phrase is “a strong indication that
the end times are in view” (Interpreting Isaiah, 139).
21 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 292.
22 Ibid. According to Davis, this is clear from the conjunction “then” at the beginning of
verse 23.
23 Ibid., 291.
24 McClain, e Greatness of the Kingdom, 215–16; Vlach, “e Kingdom of God and the
Millennium,” 235; West, e ousand Years in Both Testaments, 35–49. If Isa 24:23
refers to the millennial kingdom, it recapitulates and describes the reign which takes
 place during the “many days” of imprisonment in verse 22. In this view, the
imprisonment of verse 22 is part of what makes the reign of verse 23 possible, similar
to how the binding of Satan in Rev 20:1–3 enables the millennial reign of Christ in Rev
20:4–6. e strongest argument for this view is the parallel between Isa 24:23 and Isa
27:12–13. Isa 24:23 pictures the Lord of hosts reigning “on Mount Zion and in
Jerusalem,” and Isa 27:12–13 describes the previously exiled sons of Israel worshipping
the Lord “in the holy mountain at Jerusalem” aer being gathered from foreign nations
and reestablished in their own land. Because Isa 27:12–13 describes a scene of
millennial worship (also see Isa 25:6, 7, 10), the parallels between the two passages
suggest that Isa 24:23 also describes the millennial kingdom. An additional argument
for this view is that unless verse 23 refers to the millennial kingdom, Isa 24:21–23
makes no direct reference to the millennial reign of Christ whatsoever, even though
the “many days” of verse 22 still requires an intermediate period of time between the
Second Coming and eternal state.
25 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 197–98, 203; Blaising and Bock, Progressive
Dispensationalism, 275; and Smith, Isaiah 1–39, 426, who interprets Isa 24:23 as “a
separate thought describing what will happen aer the powers in heaven and earth are
defeated” in verses 21–22. e strongest argument for this view is the parallel between
Isa 24:23 and Rev 21:23. e former speaks of the sun and the moon being darkened as
they pale in comparison to the light of the glorious reign of the Lord, and the latter
describes how there will be no need for light from the sun or moon in the New
Jerusalem because of the illumination of God’s glory during His eternal reign (see
Blaising and Block, Progressive Dispensationalism, 275; Grogan, “Isaiah,” 623; Vlach,
“e Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” 235). If these two verses describe the
same time period, then Isa 24:23 must refer to the eternal state. In addition, this view
enjoys the simplicity of interpreting the entirety of Isa 24:21–23 in chronological order,
with the reign of verse 23 taking place aer the punishment at the end of verse 22
rather than before it. At the same time, despite the common translation “then,” the use
of the weqatal at the start of verse 23 does not demand chronological sequence
between verse 22 and verse 23 as Davis seems to imply (e High King of Heaven, 292).
26 Blaising, “e Kingdom that Comes with Jesus,” 145–46. Although Blaising identi es
the reign of Isa 24:23 with the eternal state in his earlier writings (“Premillennialism,”
197–98, 203; Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 275), his most recent
treatment of Isaiah 24 asserts that the imprisonment for many days in verse 22 “must
be included in the ‘reign’ in verse 23” (“e Kingdom that Comes with Jesus,” 146).
us it appears that Blaising interprets the reign of Isa 24:23 as encompassing both the
millennial kingdom and the eternal state. Isaiah 25–27 appears to contain a great deal
of prophetic con ation of the millennial kingdom and eternal state, making it difficult
to distinguish one from the other in many of its descriptions. For this reason, perhaps
it is best to leave open the possibility that Isa 24:23 encompasses both the millennial
reign and nal state, or at least that it does not attempt to specify which phase of the
coming reign is in view.
27 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 292.
28 Ibid. According to Davis, the New Covenant Hermeneutic “enables us to think clearly
about the true sphere of ful llment of this prophecy.”
29 Beale and McDonough do not fully explain their interpretation of Isa 24:21–22, but
they agree that the “many days” of verse 22 refers to the present age. More speci cally,
they believe that the ful llment of Isa 24:21–22 “was inaugurated at Christ’s death and
resurrection and will be culminated when Christ returns at the climax of history” (G.
K. Beale and Sean M. McDonough “Revelation,” in Commentary on the New Testament
Use of the Old Testament, eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2007], 1145).
30 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 292.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid., 291.
36 An additional problem with this interpretation is that Isa 24:21 contains a clear
reference to the eschatological Day of the Lord (“in that day”), but Davis connects it
instead to the entirety of the present age.
37 If Isaiah were providing parenthetical background information about an imprisonment
which preceded the remainder of the events in the passage, one might expect verse 22
to begin with a disjunctive clause, but it does not.
38 Davis may intend his readers to assume the same explanation of the imprisonment for
the second interpretation as that which he provided in the rst. If so, the second
interpretation faces the same problem as the rst in its inability to explain adequately
the reference to “the kings of the earth” in Isa 24:21.
39 Wayne Grudem, Systematic eology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1994), 1127. According to amillennialist Anthony
Hoekema, the intermediate kingdom of premillennialism is “something of a
theological anomaly” because it is “neither completely like the present age” nor
“completely like the age to come” (e Bible and the Future, 186). Although Hoekema
intends this as a criticism of premillennialism, his words are a tting description of the
prophetic portrayal of the kingdom in the Old Testament passages discussed above.
40 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 204.
41 According to Blaising, “e millennial kingdom revealed to John, while new in its
speci c content, is compatible with this earlier revelation concerning the
eschatological kingdom and the manner of its coming. Not only that, but now that we
have the revelation of a future millennial kingdom, that revelation harmonizes with
and clari es earlier revelation that spoke of the coming eschatological kingdom in a
more general manner” (ibid., 200). Ironically, this reasoning appears to coincide
perfectly with the view articulated by amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger, who describes
the book of Revelation as “a New Testament commentary on those redemptive-
historical themes le open-ended by the Old Testament prophets, viewed in the
greater light of postmessianic revelation” (A Case for Amillennialism, 225).
 PART 2

e Two-Age Argument
in the
New Testament
 Chapter 6

e Succession of the Two

Ages

INTRODUCTION

A s discussed in chapter 1, the two-age model has become the primary

amillennial argument against the eschatology of premillennialism. More
speci cally, amillennialists have used this model to disprove the messianic
kingdom of premillennialism in three distinct ways:

1. Because “the age to come” will immediately follow this present

age (Matt 12:32; Eph 1:21), there is no gap of time between the
two ages to allow for an intermediate kingdom.

2. Because the qualities ascribed to “the age to come” are all eternal
in nature (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:34–36), the temporal
aspects of premillennialism’s intermediate kingdom—such as sin,
death, and procreation—render it incompatible with the coming
age.

3. Because the Second Coming is the line of demarcation between

the two ages—and because it will be accompanied by the
resurrection and judgment of all mankind (Dan 12:2; John 5:28–
29; Acts 24:15; Matt 25:31–46; 2 ess 1:6–10), the destruction
 and renewal of the cosmos (2 Pet 3:10–13; Rom 8:18–23), and
the nal victory over sin and death (1 Cor 15:20–28, 50–57; Rom
8:17–23)—there is no gap of time to allow for the intermediate
kingdom of premillennialism.

ese three arguments will be examined carefully in chapters 6–10 to

determine whether the two ages in the New Testament do indeed preclude
the possibility of an intermediate kingdom. e rst argument will be
considered here in chapter 6, the second argument in chapter 7, and the
third argument—which is the strongest and most compelling of the three—
in chapters 8–10. is examination will demonstrate that the two-age
argument fails to preclude the possibility of an intermediate kingdom
between the present age and the eternal state.

THE AMILLENNIAL ARGUMENT

e rst way the two-age model is used to challenge premillennialism
involves the immediate succession of the two eschatological ages. According
to Geerhardus Vos, the declaration of Jesus that blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit will not be forgiven “either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt
12:32) indicates that the coming age will begin immediately aer the present
one. “To say that a sin will not be forgiven either in this age or in the age to
come,” Vos writes, “could never have served as a formula for absolute
unforgiveableness ad in nitum … if there were conceivable a gap between
the two aions.”1 Vos referred to this as the “direct successiveness” of the two
ages, meaning that the age to come will immediately follow this age, with no
intervening gap of time separating the two.2
According to some amillennialists, the immediate succession of the two
ages precludes the possibility of an intermediate kingdom between the
present age and the eternal state. Matthew 12:32 and Ephesians 1:21, in
particular, are said to “indicate that there is no intervening or temporary
time period between ‘this age’ and the ‘age to come.’”3 As Anthony Hoekema
argues, because there is no indication in Scripture “that there will also be a
third age in between the present age and the age to come,”4 the intermediate
kingdom of premillennialism is precluded as a possibility.5 Similarly,
according to Samuel Waldron, because the age to come will immediately
follow this age, the two ages exhaust all of human history and therefore they
leave “no possibility of a state intermediate between them.”6
Amillennialist Robert Reymond makes the same argument. According
to Reymond: “Jesus envisioned two ages—this present (evil) age and the age
to come—as comprehending the remainder of human existence. He said
nothing about a third, intermediate period or millennial age. I nd no
millennial reign in Jesus’ eschatology.”7 Furthermore, Reymond writes, “He
envisioned these two ages as consecutive, that is, they neither overlap, nor is
there any indication of a gap between them, but the age to come follows
immediately upon this present age.”8 According to this argument, then, the
immediate transition from this age to the age to come allows no time for an
intermediate kingdom between the two:

In this way, the intermediate kingdom of premillennialism is said to be

incompatible with the two-age model presented in the New Testament.

THE PREMILLENNIAL RESPONSE

Ironically, the premillennial response to this argument was anticipated by
Vos himself. According to Vos, the immediate succession of the two ages
isn’t necessarily incompatible with the eschatology of premillennialists, for
“under their scheme the millennium could in part be identi ed with the age
to come as the beginning thereof.”9 In other words, as Vos recognized, the
premillennialist has no need to dispute the direct succession of the two ages
as implied by passages like Matthew 12:32 and Ephesians 1:21. Instead, by
viewing the intermediate kingdom as an initial phase of the age to come—
rather than a separate age or dispensation preceding it—premillennialism is
able to harmonize its millennium with the absence of an interval between
the two ages,10 resulting in the following:
Rather a separate time period which elapses between the two ages, then, the
millennium is the rst thousand years of the age to come.11
is kind of harmonization is not foreign to amillennialists. In fact,
according to its proponents, the two-age model itself consists of a
modi cation of the Old Testament prophetic expectation, which originally
understood the coming of Christ as ushering in a single glorious messianic
age.12 But when it was later revealed that the coming of Messiah would be
ful lled in two different stages—in a rst and a second coming—the
anticipated age to come was likewise seen to unfold in two different ages:
“this age” and “the age to come.”13 According to Vos, not until the messianic
appearance had unfolded in two successive stages was the age to come
“perceived to bear in its womb another age to come.”14 e premillennialist
appeals to this same dynamic of progressive revelation and simply asks the
amillennialist to accept the possibility of further modi cation in light of
later revelation, modi cation in which the age to come “bears in its womb”
both an intermediate kingdom (Rev 20) and the eternal state (Rev 21–22).15

THE PREMILLENNIAL EVIDENCE

ree lines of evidence support this view. First, as discussed in chapters 2–4,
the Old Testament prophets portray the future reign of Messiah as
characterized by peace, righteousness, and a universal blessing which clearly
transcends the conditions of the present age; and yet some of these same
prophetic portrayals of the kingdom include the existence of physical birth,
physical death, and human rebellion, all of which are incompatible with the
eternal state (Ps 72:1–20; Isa 2:1–3; Mic 4:2–4; Isa 11:1–9; 65:17–25; Zech
8:4–5; 14:16–19). In addition, as discussed in chapter 5, Isaiah 24:21–23
speaks of a lengthy period of “many days” which will separate the Second
Coming of Christ from the nal judgment and subsequent eternal state.
 As premillennialist Craig Blaising writes, “e key that puts all these
features together is John’s explicit revelation [in Revelation 20] of a
millennial kingdom between the return of Jesus and the Final Judgment.”16
In this way, even though the Old Testament prophets do not set forth a clear
distinction between the intermediate and ultimate phases of the coming
kingdom, this distinction is implied in many of their prophecies, and it is
later made explicit by John’s prophecy in Revelation 20.17 For this reason,
the best way to account for all the biblical data, and to resolve the
aforementioned tension in the prophetic picture, is to recognize the
existence of two stages of the coming kingdom—the millennium (Rev 20)
and the eternal state (Rev 21–22).
Second, the original context of the two-age terminology in the New
Testament supports the idea of a temporary phase of the kingdom between
the present age and the eternal state. When Jesus and the New Testament
writers referred to “this age” and “the age to come” (e.g., Matt 12:32; Mark
10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:34–35; Eph 1:21), they were using existing terminology
and thereby appealing to an already well-established eschatological
framework.18 As explained in the appendix of this book—“e Intermediate
Kingdom in Intertestamental Judaism”—the two-age model ultimately had
its roots in the Jewish apocalyptic writings in the late second and early rst
century BC, when these terms were rst used.19 By 100 BC this two-age
framework in Jewish eschatology came to include a distinction between a
temporary kingdom on earth and the nal state of eternity, resulting in a
three-fold division of redemptive history: the present age, an intermediate
kingdom, and the eternal state.20 is was the clear consensus of Jewish
thought between 100 BC and AD 100.21
erefore, when Jesus and the New Testament writers referred to “this
age” and “the age to come,” this terminology and the framework it
represented were understood by their original audience to include the
existence of an intermediate kingdom. For this reason, the original cultural
and historical context of these two-age passages places the burden of proof
on those who believe that Jesus and the New Testament writers departed
from the commonly understood two-age framework when they referred to
“this age” and “the age to come.” If the two-age model of rst-century
Judaism included an intermediate kingdom between the present age and the
eternal state, one should be slow to conclude that the New Testament’s use of
the very same terminology precludes the possibility of such a kingdom, and
one should require clear and compelling evidence before reaching this
conclusion. Passages indicating the direct succession of the two ages—such
as Matthew 12:32 and Ephesians 1:21—do not meet this burden of proof.
ird, as discussed above and demonstrated later in chapters 11–14,
Revelation 20 clearly sets forth an intermediate kingdom between the
present age and the eternal state. As George Eldon Ladd explains, embracing
the unique contribution of Revelation 20 to the Bible’s teaching on the
coming kingdom involves recognizing that divine revelation in Scripture is
progressive rather than static:

e implications of progressive revelation are always applied in the

study of the relationship between the New Testament and the Old
and within the movement from Moses to the post-exilic prophets in
the Old Testament writings. ere is no reason why there might not
be a further application of progress in revelation in the New
Testament books. It might well be that in the Apocalypse, elements
of a new revelation were imparted to John by the Lord, to the effect
that there should be a millennial interregnum.22

According to Blaising, recognizing this progress of revelation—and

harmonizing all that Scripture teaches about the coming kingdom, including
Revelation 20—is at the heart of the biblical case for premillennialism:

My argument for premillennialism is that the millennial kingdom

revealed to John, while new in its speci c content, is compatible with
this earlier revelation concerning the eschatological kingdom and
the manner of its coming. Not only that, but now that we have the
revelation of a future millennial kingdom, that revelation
harmonizes with and clari es earlier revelation that spoke of the
coming eschatological kingdom in a more general manner.23

At the foundation of this approach is the recognition that later revelation

oen brings additional detail and therefore greater clarity to earlier
revelation. Because of the divine authorship (and therefore perfect unity) of
Scripture, this subsequent revelation will never contradict or reinterpret
previous revelation in a way that departs from its original meaning, but later
prophecies may supplement or clarify earlier revelation by providing more
context or detail.
In the case of Revelation 20, this passage clari es that the coming
eschatological kingdom will consist of two phases which follow the return of
Christ—an intermediate kingdom of a thousand years (Rev 20) and the
eternal state of the new heavens and new earth (Rev 21–22). In this way, just
as the two mountain ranges of Christ’s two comings were not clearly
distinguished until the New Testament, so the two future stages of the
kingdom (and the age to come) are not clearly distinguished until the last
book of the Bible.24

1 Geerhardus Vos, e Pauline Eschatology (1930; repr., Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian

and Reformed Publishing, 1994), 26.
2 Ibid., 25.
3 Jonathan Menn, Biblical Eschatology (Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2013), 42.
4 Anthony Hoekema, e Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1979), 185.
5 Samuel E. Waldron, e End Times Made Simple: How Could Everyone Be So Wrong
About Biblical Prophecy? (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2003), 42.
6 Ibid., 40. Elsewhere Waldron writes: “is age and the age to come taken together
exhaust all time, including the endless time of the eternal state. is means that there is
no period between or beside this age and the age to come” (42). Waldron argues for the
exhaustiveness of the two ages from Matt 12:32 // Mark 3:29, Mark 10:29–30, and 1
Tim 6:17–19 (37–39). ere is disagreement among amillennial two-age proponents,
however, regarding the extent of the time period designated “this age.” According to
some, “this age” covers all of human history, extending from creation to the Second
Coming of Christ (Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 37–42). Others divide
human history into “the past age” (from creation to the rst coming) and “this age”
(from the rst to the Second Coming) (Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 20). And
still others divide human history into “the age of innocence” (from creation to fall) and
“this age” (from the fall to the Second Coming) (Dean Davis, e High King of Heaven:
Discovering the Master Keys to the Great End Time Debate [Enumclaw, WA: WinePress
Publishing, 2014], 165). But this disagreement ultimately has little or no bearing on the
two-age argument against premillennialism, because the amillennial consensus is that
the “age to come” is a single age that begins at the Second Coming and extends into
eternity.
7 Robert L. Reymond, “Response by Robert L. Reymond,” in Perspectives on Israel and
the Church: 4 Views, ed. Chad O. Brand (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2015), 209.
8 Ibid.
9 Vos, e Pauline Eschatology, 25. For this reason, Vos, unlike other amillennialists, did
not see the immediate succession of the two ages as necessarily excluding an
intermediate kingdom between the present age and the eternal state.
10 George Eldon Ladd, e Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of
God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1959), 26–40.
11 For this reason, the premillennialist has no need to deny that the two ages constitute
the basic structure of biblical eschatology. In fact, the “inaugurated eschatology”
popularized by premillennialist George Eldon Ladd was based largely on his own
understanding of two-age paradigm in the New Testament (e Gospel of the Kingdom,
26–51; Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1952], 167–69). According to premillennialist Walter Kaiser, “With the use
of the twin terms, ‘this age’ and ‘the age to come,’ the New Testament lays down one of
the most helpful frameworks from which to view the grand spectacle of God’s
dramatic conclusion to the series of events that are already in motion” (Walter C.
Kaiser, Jr., Back Toward the Future: Hints for Interpreting Biblical Prophecy [Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1989], 118).
12 Vos, e Pauline Eschatology, 36–38; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 12, 18; Kim
Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, expanded ed.
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013), 76, 79.
13 Vos, e Pauline Eschatology, 36–38; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 12;
Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 76, 79. As Hoekema writes, “In the New
Testament we also nd the realization that what the Old Testament writers seemed to
depict as one movement must now be recognized as involving two stages: the present
Messianic age and the age of the future” (e Bible and the Future, 18).
14 Vos, e Pauline Eschatology, 36.
15 See Ladd, e Gospel of the Kingdom, 26–40. One amillennialist cites Paul’s reference to
“the ages to come” (toi:V aijw:sin toi:V ejpercomevnoiV) in Eph 2:7 as evidence that the
age to come is composed of a plurality of “lesser ages” (Waldron, e End Times Made
Simple, 35), but he fails to recognize how this might allow for an intermediate kingdom
as the rst phase of the age to come. It is difficult to determine whether Paul’s intention
in Eph 2:7 is indeed to imply the existence of more than one age within the age to
come. In contrast to this possibility, most amillennial interpreters believe that the
plural of aijw:n in Eph 2:7 is simply a reference to eternity (Vos, e Pauline
Eschatology, 316; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 18; Davis, High King of Heaven,
171) because of how the plural so oen designates eternity elsewhere in the New
Testament (Hermann Sasse, “aijw:n,” in TDNT, ed. Gerhard Kittel [Eerdmans
Publishing, 1964], 1:199, 206; Oscar Cullmann, “e Signi cance of the New
Testament Terminology for Time,” in Dimensions of Faith, ed. William Kimmel and
Geoffrey Cline [New York: Twayne, 1960], 316). But in most of these other plural uses,
 aijw:n functions as the object of the preposition eijV and/or in a genitive relationship
with another use of aijw:n which is functioning as the object of eijV, such as: eijV tou;V
aijw:naV/“unto the ages” (Luke 1:33; Rom 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; 2 Cor 11:31; Heb
13:21; 1 Pet 5:11); eijV pavntaV tou;V aijw:naV/“unto all the ages” (Jude 25); eijV tou;V
aijw:naV tw:n aijwvnwn/“unto the ages of the ages” (Gal 1:5; Phil 4:20; 1 Tim 1:17; 2 Tim
4:18; 1 Pet 4:11; Rev 1:6, 18; 4:9, 10; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; 22:5); eijV
aijw:naV aijwvnwn/“unto ages of ages” (Rev 14:11); and eijV tou;V aijw:naV tou:
aijwvnoV/“unto the ages of the age” (Heb 1:8). is is similar to the most common way
to designate eternity, namely the singular use of aijw:n as the object of eijV—eijV to;n
aijw:na/“unto the age” (Matt 21:19; Mark 3:29; 11:14; Luke 1:55; John 4:14; 6:51, 58;
8:35 [2x], 51, 52; 10:28; 11:26; 12:34; 13:8; 14:16; 1 Cor 8:13; 2 Cor 9:9; Heb 5:6; 6:20;
7:17, 21, 24, 28; 1 Pet 1:25; 1 John 2:17; 2 John 2; Jude 13).
e uniqueness of Paul’s expression in Eph 2:7—in contrast to these technical
formulas, which are so prevalent throughout the New Testament—undermines the
argument that the plural of aijw:n in Eph 2:7 must refer to eternity. At the same time,
the uniqueness of Paul’s expression also makes it difficult to affirm with certainty that
it envisions the existence of more than one age within the age to come. Although it
may indeed re ect this reality, it appears more likely that the plural “ages to come” in
Eph 2:7 is Paul’s way to describe eternity by referring to “one age supervening upon
another like successive waves of the sea, as far into the future as thought can reach” (F.
F. Bruce, e Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1984], 288; also see Peter T. O’Brien, e Letter
to the Ephesians, PNTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1999], 173; Andrew T.
Lincoln, Ephesians, WBC [Dallas: Word Books, 1990], 110–11).
16 Craig A. Blaising, “Premillennialism,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond,
ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1999), 204.
17 Ibid., 200–4.
18 Larry R. Helyer, “e Necessity, Problems, and Promise of Second Temple Judaism for
Discussions of New Testament Eschatology,” JETS 47, no. 4 (Dec 2004), 598; J. Julius
Scott, Jr., Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995),
271, 286; W. D. Davies, e Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (London: Cambridge
University Press, 1963), 182–83; Vos, e Pauline Eschatology, 14, 16, 28. As Walter
Kaiser writes, “Just as intertestamental Judaism expressed a divine division in time
between ‘this age’ and the ‘age to come,’ so the New Testament follows suit and uses the
same terms and similar concepts” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Preaching and Teaching the
Last ings: Old Testament Eschatology for the Life of the Church [Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2011], xv). Kaiser refers to this as the New Testament writers using “the
traditional Jewish concept of the ‘two ages.’” According to Vos, “ere is no escape
from the conclusion that a piece of Jewish theology has been … incorporated into the
Apostle’s teaching. Paul had none less than Jesus Himself as a predecessor in this. e
main structure of the Jewish Apocalyptic is embodied in our Lord’s teaching as well as
in Paul’s” (e Pauline Eschatology, 28). At the same time, Vos contends that Paul’s
 eschatology differed from the Jewish writings in certain fundamental features,
claiming, for example, that there was no place in the apostle’s eschatology “for an
earthly, provisional kingdom of the Messiah.”
19 Helyer, “Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Eschatology,” 598; Sasse, “aijwvn,
aijwvnioV,” 206–7; Haïm Z’ew Hirschberg, “Eschatology,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica (New
York: e MacMillan Company, 1971), 6:874. See the appendix, “e Intermediate
Kingdom in Intertestamental Judaism,” for an explanation (and documentation) of
how this two-age model emerged and developed in the Jewish writings.
20 R. H. Charles, Eschatology, the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism, and
Christianity: A Critical History (New York, Schocken Books, 1963), 167–361; R. H.
Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, vol. 2, ICC
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1970), 142; D. S. Russell, e Method and Message of Jewish
Apocalyptic: 200 BC – AD 100 (Philadephia: e Westminster Press, 1964), 291, 297;
Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament, 292; Philip Schaff, History of the
Christian Church, 3rd ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006), 2:614; J. W.
Bailey, “e Temporary Messianic Reign in the Literature of Early Judaism,” JBL 53,
no. 1 (1934): 187; George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian
Era: e Age of Tannaim, vols. 2 and 3 (Peabody: MA, Hendrickson Publishers, 1960),
2:378.
21 In spite of this consensus, some confusion existed regarding the precise relationship
between this temporary kingdom and the terminology “the age/world to come.”
Sometimes the intermediate kingdom and the “age to come” are clearly distinguished
—with the former being portrayed as a transitional stage between this world and the
world to come—and other times the two cannot be separated, being either con ated or
referred to interchangeably (Scott, Backgrounds of the New Testament, 292–93; also see
Russell, e Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 296–97; Jacob Neusner and
William Scott Green, eds., e Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period: 450 B.C.E.
to 600 C.E. [New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1996], 1:203; Joseph Klausner,
e Messianic Idea in Israel from Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah, trans.
W. F. Stinespring [London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1956], 408–19; W. D. Davies,
Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline eology [Mifflintown,
PA: Sigler Press, 1998], 316; A. Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud [New York: E.P. Dutton and
Co., 1949], 356; Joseph Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Jesus, trans.
William Wolf [New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964], 205–6; Davies, e
Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, 182; George Eldon Ladd, e Presence of the
Future: e Eschatology of Biblical Realism [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1974], 92; Robert H. Gundry, e Church and the Tribulation: A Biblical Examination
of Posttribulationism [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1999], 142). Because of this
ambiguity, it is difficult to identify with certainty the precise referent of “the age to
come” in Jewish thought at the time of the New Testament. But regardless of whether
(a) the age to come = the intermediate kingdom, (b) the age to come = the eternal state
(with the intermediate kingdom viewed as a transitional phase between the present age
 and the eternal state), or (c) the age to come = the intermediate kingdom and the
eternal state, one thing is clear: e two-age model of rst-century Judaism included a
belief in a temporary kingdom of Messiah between the present age and the eternal
state.
22 Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, 181–82.
23 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 200.
24 Daniel B. Wallace, “New Testament Eschatology in the Light of Progressive
Revelation,” accessed on August 7, 2014, https://bible.org/article/new-testament-
eschatology-light-progressive-revelation.
 Chapter 7

e Characteristics of the
Two Ages

INTRODUCTION

The second way that the two-age model is used as an argument against
premillennialism involves the characteristics ascribed to these two ages in
the New Testament. According to amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger, “e
qualities assigned by the biblical writers to ‘this age’ are always temporal in
nature and represent the fallen world and its sinful inhabitants awaiting the
judgment to come at our Lord’s return.”1 In this way, “this age” is always
used in reference to things which are destined to perish.2 In contrast, says
Riddlebarger, “e qualities assigned to the age to come are all eternal (or
nontemporal) in nature.”3 Consequently, the age to come is an age of eternal
life and immortality,4 an age “in which there are no marriages or sexual
relationships,”5 an age “characterized by the realization of all the blessings of
the resurrection and consummation.”6 Put simply, the age to come is the
eternal state.7
According to the two-age argument, the intermediate kingdom of
premillennialism “belongs neither to the present age nor to the age to
come,”8 rendering it incompatible with the eschatological framework of the
New Testament. For this reason, the two-age model is said to confront
premillennialism with what Samuel Waldron calls “an impossible dilemma”:
 Where will premillennialism put the millennium within the scheme
of the two ages? In this age or in the age to come? It cannot put it into
this age. Why not? Because according to premillennialism the
millennium occurs aer Christ’s second coming, and this age
concludes with Christ’s second coming. Neither, however, can it put
the millennium in the age to come. Again, why not? Because no
wicked men in an un-resurrected condition remain in that age….
Since there is no intermediate or other period beside the two ages,
premillennialism cannot be reconciled with the biblical, two-age
scheme.9

Amillennialist Robert Strimple appeals to the two-age model and

summarizes the premillennial dilemma in a similar way:

Where does the Millennium t into this fundamental structure of

New Testament eschatology? Will it be the nal phase of “this age” or
the initial phase of “the age to come”? Will it take place on this
present sin-cursed earth or on the renewed earth of the
consummation?10

Because the intermediate kingdom of premillennialism includes

temporal aspects of human existence such as sin, death, and procreation,
amillennial proponents of the two-age model insist it is impossible to view
this millennial reign as part of the coming age. As William Cox writes: “e
Scriptures outline but two ages: the present age and the age to come. e age
to come is everywhere said to be eternal, and would therefore be in complete
contradistinction to an interregnum of one thousand years.”11 For this
reason, the millennial kingdom of premillennialism is said to be
incompatible with the two-age model presented in the New Testament.

THE PREMILLENNIAL RESPONSE

In response to this argument, it should rst be noted that the amillennial
description of “this age” is perfectly compatible with premillennialism. In
other words, premillennialists completely agree that the various New
Testament descriptions of the present age characterize this time period as
sinful, temporal, and destined to perish (Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18; 2
Cor 4:4; Gal 1:4; Eph 2:2; 1 Tim 6:17–19; Titus 2:12).12 Premillennialists also
agree with two-age advocates that this present age will come to an end at the
Second Coming of Christ (Matt 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20). Because of this
consensus—and because 16 of the 22 “two-age” texts cited by amillennialists
refer only to this age13—there is much agreement on the meaning of most of
the relevant passages.
is narrows the scope of disagreement to how the age to come is
characterized in the New Testament. But even here there is considerable
harmony. For example, when Riddlebarger describes the age to come as that
time in the future when “all redemptive-historical loose ends will be tied up
and the nal consummation of all things, such as the resurrection of the
dead, the nal judgment, and the re-creation of all things, will take place,”14
the premillennialist fully agrees. In the premillennial view, all of these events
will indeed take place in the age to come, whether in the intermediate
kingdom as the initial phase of this coming age, in the new heavens and new
earth as the eternal state, or in a combination of the two.
In light of this agreement, then, the only remaining question is whether
the New Testament describes the age to come in such a way that precludes
the existence of an intermediate kingdom as the initial phase of this coming
age. Of the six passages explicitly referring to the age to come (Matt 12:32;
Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:34–35; Eph 1:21; Heb 6:5), three of them are
clearly compatible with a temporary millennial kingdom. Matthew 12:32
says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven “either in
this age or in the age to come;” Ephesians 1:21 teaches that Jesus has been
exalted above every authority and every name “not only in this age but also
in the one to come;” and Hebrews 6:5 refers to those who have tasted the
powers of the age to come and yet have fallen way. ere is nothing in these
three references to the coming age that excludes the millennial kingdom of
premillennialism. is leaves Mark 10:30, Luke 18:30, and Luke 20:34–36 as
the only remaining passages to argue against an intermediate kingdom.

e Argument from Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30

In Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30, which are parallel accounts of the same
interaction, Jesus is speaking to His disciples aer the rich young ruler’s
refusal to forsake his possessions and follow Christ (Mark 10:22; Luke
18:23). Aer this man’s departure, Peter declares to Jesus that he and his
fellow disciples have le everything to follow Him (Mark 10:28; Luke 18:28).
In response, Jesus tells Peter and the disciples that whoever has forsaken
everything for the sake of the gospel will receive a hundred times as much in
the present age, and eternal life in the age to come (Mark 10:29–30; Luke
18:29–30).
According to the amillennial argument, because Jesus promised eternal
life for His disciples in the age to come, Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 indicate
that the coming age is the “age of eternal life,”15 an age in which “there will
be no death,”16 an age that “is characterized by resurrection life and
immortality.”17 For this reason, this description of the coming age is said to
exclude the possibility of an intermediate kingdom in which death continues
to exist.
e amillennial interpretation of Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 is correct
to a degree: Even though eternal life is both a present possession (John 3:36;
17:3; 1 John 5:11–13) and a future inheritance (Matt 25:46; Rom 2:7), these
verses clearly emphasize eternal life as a future inheritance. For this reason,
the promise of eternal life in Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 most likely includes
the believer’s resurrection and glori cation as rewards to be received in the
age to come (cf. Rom 2:7), just as the amillennialist says. Every disciple of
Christ will indeed receive eternal life, including physical resurrection and
glori cation, in the age to come.
But the problem with the amillennial argument is that this
understanding of Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 is perfectly compatible with
the eschatology of premillennialism. In other words, when the amillennialist
points to Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 as evidence that every disciple of
Christ will be resurrected and glori ed in the age to come, the
premillennialist fully agrees. Within the various tribulational positions
among premillennialists, there is some disagreement regarding when
different groups of believers will be resurrected and glori ed; but regardless
of whether a given group of believers is resurrected and glori ed at a pre-
tribulational rapture, at a mid-tribulational rapture, at the Second Coming,
during the millennial kingdom, or at the end of the millennial kingdom, all
premillennialists agree that every disciple of Christ will indeed receive the
inheritance of eternal life in the age to come.
e unproven assumption in the amillennial argument is that if every
believer will be resurrected and glori ed in the age to come, then the
resurrection and glori cation of every believer must take place at the very
beginning of the age to come, so that there is no possibility of physical death
at any point during this time period. But this goes beyond what Jesus
actually says in Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30. Jesus does not say that there will
be no death in the age to come—He simply says that all of His followers will
inherit eternal life in the age to come.18 Because this promise of eternal life
is compatible with the view that the millennium of Revelation 20 is the
initial phase of the coming kingdom, this argument fails to disprove the
eschatology of premillennialism.

e Argument from Luke 20:34–36

e primary amillennial argument concerning the characteristics of the
coming age is found in Luke 20:34–36, where Jesus says:

e sons of this age [tou: aijw:noV touvtou] marry and are given in
marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age
[tou: aijw:noV ejkeivnou] and the resurrection from the dead, neither
marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore,
because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the
resurrection.

According to Riddebarger, this passage has signi cant implications for the
two-age model:

e contrast Jesus set forth between the two ages was not strictly
chronological but a contrast between two successive redemptive ages
that differ from one another qualitatively, as temporal life differs
from eternal. People marry and have families in this age. ey will
not in the age to come because they will be children of the
resurrection (Luke 20:34–36).19
In other words, those who attain to the age to come will be sons of the
resurrection, and therefore neither marriage nor physical birth or death will
exist during this time, for they will be like angels.20
According to this argument, it is impossible for premillennialists to
explain the existence of unresurrected, non-glorifed individuals in the
millennium.21 As Riddlebarger writes:

How do they account for people who are not judged or raised from
the dead at the time of our Lord’s second advent? is is especially
problematic since Jesus himself taught that in the age to come his
people will all be children of the resurrection (Luke 20:34–36).22

Because the intermediate kingdom of premillennialism includes temporal

aspects of human existence like sin, death, and procreation, amillennialists
insist that Luke 20:34–36 makes it impossible to view this millennial
kingdom as part of the age to come.
e key to evaluating this argument is found in the immediate context.
In Luke 20:27–28a, a group of Sadducees—who categorically deny a future
resurrection (v. 27)—comes to Jesus and begins to question Him (v. 28a).
Appealing to the law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5, these
Sadducees raise the hypothetical example of a woman who marries seven
brothers, one at a time, as each of those brothers ful lls his Mosaic duty:

Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, having a

wife, and he is childless, his brother should marry the wife and raise
up children to his brother. Now there were seven brothers; and the
rst took a wife and died childless; and the second and the third
married her; and in the same way all seven died, leaving no children.
Finally the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, which
one’s wife will she be? For all seven had married her (Luke 20:28b–
33).

Even though the Sadducees asked Jesus a question—“which one’s wife

will she be?” (v. 33)—it is clear that this is not a sincere inquiry. Instead, it is
a deliberate attempt to disprove the future resurrection by highlighting what
they believe to be the absurdity of its implications. eir question, in other
words, is not really a question—it is an argument against the resurrection. In
response to their argument, Jesus exposes the absurdity of the question itself
by informing the Sadducees that marriage will no longer exist among those
who are resurrected (vv. 34–36), and then He provides clear biblical support
for a future resurrection from the teaching of Moses (vv. 37–38), leaving His
listeners with nothing more to say (vv. 39–40).
According to the immediate context, then, the words of Jesus in Luke
20:34–36 are not simply a general description of the age to come—they are
designed to answer the Sadducees’ argument against the future resurrection.
e hypothetical example of the Sadducees speci cally concerned those who
had experienced the future resurrection, as indicated by the phrase “in the
resurrection” (ejn th:/ ajnastavsei) at the beginning of their question (Luke
20:33). erefore, when Jesus responded by describing the nature of God’s
people in the age to come, His focus is on the implications of the future
resurrection for the question of marriage.
More speci cally, Jesus corrected the premise of the question by stating
that marriage will no longer exist among those who are resurrected, which
nulli ed the argument of the Sadducees by exposing the irrelevance of their
hypothetical example. e main point of Luke 20:34–36, then, is that
marriage will no longer exist among those who have been resurrected, for
they will be like angels, being neither married nor subject to death. In other
words, the focus of Jesus is not on everyone who attains to the age to come,
but on everyone who attains to “that age and the resurrection from the
dead” (Luke 20:35).23
e key, once again, is the immediate context. Because the question of
the Sadducees focused exclusively on those who were resurrected, this was
also the exclusive focus of the response of Jesus. Explaining that some
people in the initial phase of the coming kingdom will not be resurrected
would not have served His purpose in refuting the error of the Sadducees or
defending the doctrine of the resurrection. erefore, to make distinctions
irrelevant to the argument of the Sadducees would not only fail to bring
clarity to the issue, but it might also distract or confuse His listeners in the
process. Luke 20:34–36 neither contemplates nor comments on the
possibility of non-glori ed individuals in the rst part of the age to come,
not because Jesus denies this possibility but because it was not germane to
the point He was making.
If this were the only passage in Scripture describing the age to come, one
might understandably conclude that there could be no physical birth or
death at any point during this period of time. But with the testimony of the
Old Testament prophets regarding the existence of sin, death, and
procreation in the coming kingdom (Ps 72:1–20; Isa 2:1–3; Micah 4:2–4; Isa
11:1–9; 65:17–25; Zech 14:16–19)—along with the clear teaching of
Revelation 19–21 that an intermediate kingdom will precede the eternal
state (cf. Isa 24:21–23)—the need to harmonize the entirety of biblical
teaching leads to the conclusion that Luke 20:34–36 is compatible with the
millennial kingdom of premillennialism.

CONCLUSION
e characteristics ascribed to the two ages in the New Testament are
consistent with the eschatology of amillennialisn, but they do not require it.
In addition, these characteristics do not preclude the possibility of an
intermediate kingdom between the present age and the eternal state.
Amillennialists deny that the temporal aspects of human existence—such as
sin, death, and procreation—can be present at any point in the age to come,
but these passages fail to make a clear and compelling argument for this
claim, and, therefore, they fail to disprove the messianic kingdom of
premillennialism.

1 Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, expanded
ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013), 97. In support of his description of the present
age, Riddlebarger cites Matt 24:3; 28:20; Luke 18:30; 20:34; Mark 10:30; Rom 12:2; Gal
1:4; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6–8; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:2; 1 Tim 6:17; and Titus 2:12–13.
2 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 97.
3 Ibid., 104. As amillennialist Jonathan Menn summarizes, “is age is temporal; the age
to come is eternal. is age is characterized by sin, death, marriage, and all that
accompanies life in this body; the age to come is characterized by holiness and new,
resurrected life” (Jonathan Menn, Biblical Eschatology [Eugene, OR: Resource
Publications, 2013], 342; see ibid., 370).
4 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 96.
5 Ibid., 97.
6 Ibid., 98. In support of his description of the age to come, Riddlebarger cites Matt
12:32; 13:40; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 1 Tim 6:19; 1 Cor 6:9–10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; and
Eph 5:5.
7 According to amillennialist Dean Davis, passages like Matt 12:32, Mark 10:30, and
Luke 20:35–36 make it “quite clear that the Age (or World) to Come is the nal state,
the ultimate goal towards which Salvation History is tending” (Dean Davis, e High
King of Heaven: Discovering the Master Keys to the Great End Time Debate [Enumclaw,
WA: WinePress Publishing, 2014], 166). Menn lists 17 qualitative differences between
“this age” and “the age to come” as evidence of this same conclusion (Biblical
Eschatology, 41–42).
8 Anthony Hoekema, e Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1979), 185. According to Hoekema: “e millennium of the premillennialists … is
something of a theological anomaly. It is neither completely like the present age, nor is
it completely like the age to come. It is, to be sure, better than the present age, but it
falls far short of being the nal state of perfection. For the resurrected and glori ed
saints, the millennium is an agonizing postponement of the nal state of glory to
which they look forward so eagerly. For the rebellious nations, the millennium is a
continuation of the ambiguity of the present age, in which God allows evil to exist
while postponing his nal judgment upon it” (186).
9 Samuel E. Waldron, e End Times Made Simple: How Could Everyone Be So Wrong
About Biblical Prophecy? (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2003), 44; emphasis original.
10 Robert B. Strimple, “An Amillennial Response to Craig A. Blaising,” in ree Views on
the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing,
1999), 268–69.
11 William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1966), 65.
12 E.g., premillennialist George Eldon Ladd describes this age as “dominated by evil,
wickedness, and rebellion against the will of God” (George Eldon Ladd, e Gospel of
the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1959], 28).
13 Of the various New Testament references to the two ages, 16 of them refer only to this
age (Matt 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6 [2x], 8; 3:18; 2 Cor 4:4;
Gal 1:4; Eph 2:2; 1 Tim 6:17–19; Titus 2:12), ve of them refer to both ages (Matt
12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:34–35; Eph 1:21), and one of them refers only to the
age to come (Heb 6:5).
14 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 80.
15 Menn, Biblical Eschatology, 41; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 98.
Riddlebarger also describes this promise as indicating that “eternal life is a reward”
(104), but he says nothing about the implications of these two verses.
16 Menn, Biblical Eschatology, 41.
17 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 96.
18 In contrast to the way it is portrayed by amillennialists, the statement of Jesus in Mark
10:30 and Luke 18:30 is not so much a description of the age to come as it is a promise
of the reward to be received in the age to come.
19 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 108.
20 As Waldron writes, “Luke 20:35 teaches that attaining to that age is equivalent to
attaining to the resurrection of the dead. e resurrection is the door out of this age,
and into the age to come” (e End Times Made Simple, 41).
21 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 276, 315; Waldron, e End Times Made
Simple, 40–41; Floyd E. Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1955), 135.
22 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 276.
23 e genitives tou: aijw:noV ejkeivnou (“that age”) and th:V ajnastavsewV th:V ejk nekrw:n
(“the resurrection from the dead”) are joined by the conjunction kai; as compound
objects of the in nitive tucei:n (“to attain”). As such, they describe those who neither
marry nor die as those who have attained both the age to come and the resurrection of
the dead.
 Chapter 8

e Resurrection and
Judgment of All Mankind

INTRODUCTION

The third way that the two-age model is used to refute premillennialism
involves the dividing line between the two ages. According to this argument,
several New Testament passages describe the line of demarcation between
this age and the age to come in a way that precludes the possibility of an
intermediate kingdom between the two. ese passages are said to indicate
not only that the dividing line between the two ages is the Second Coming
of Christ (Matt 13:39) but also that each of the following events will take
place at the Second Coming:

e Resurrection of All Mankind (Dan 12:2; John 5:28–29; Acts

24:15)
e Judgment of All Mankind (Matt 25:31–46; 2 ess 1:6–10)
e Destruction of the Cosmos (2 Pet 3:10–13)
e Renewal of the Cosmos (2 Pet 3:10–13; Rom 8:18–23)
e Final Victory over Sin (Rom 8:18–23)
e Final Victory over Death (1 Cor 15:20–28, 50–57)

According to this argument, because each of these will take place at the
return of Christ, there is no room for a thousand-year gap between the
Second Coming and these other events, and therefore the possibility of the
intermediate kingdom of premillennialism is precluded.

As amillennialist Sam Storms writes, “When we examine what the New

Testament says will occur at the time of the second coming/advent of Jesus
Christ, there is no place for a 1,000 year earthly reign to follow.”1 ese six
eschatological events will be examined in chapters 8–10 to determine not
only their exact timing but also whether the corresponding biblical passages
actually preclude the possibility of an intermediate kingdom. In the end, it
will be demonstrated that they do not.

THE RESURRECTION OF ALL MANKIND

According to amillennialism, the Bible presents the resurrection of all
mankind—both believers and unbelievers—as occurring at the same time
(Dan 12:2; John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15).2 Although the doctrine of the future
resurrection is not fully developed in the Old Testament, Daniel 12:2 says:
“And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to
everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.”
According to amillennialist Anthony Hoekema, this verse “mentions the
resurrection of the godly and that of the wicked in the same breath, with no
indication that the resurrection of these two groups shall be separated by a
long period of time.”3
e simultaneous timing of the resurrection of the righteous and the
wicked is also said to be taught in John 5:28–29, where Jesus says: “Do not
marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs shall
hear His voice, and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds to a
resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of
judgment.” According to Hoekema, the clear implication of John 5:28–29 is
that

at a certain speci c time, here called the coming “hour,” all who are
in their graves will hear the voice of Christ and be raised from the
dead. ere is no indication here that Jesus intends to teach that an
extremely long period of time will separate the resurrection of life
from the resurrection of judgment.4

Amillennialist Sam Storms claims that the premillennialist is unable to

accept the straightforward declaration of John 5:28–29.5 Instead, says
Storms, the premillennialist “insists that a 1,000-year earthly reign of Christ
must intervene between the resurrection of believers and the resurrection of
unbelievers.”6 In contrast, amillennialism affirms that “the resurrection of
believers and unbelievers will occur concurrently at the end of the age.”7 In
the words of Kim Riddlebarger, “It is beyond question that the resurrection
of the righteous and unrighteous both occur at the sound of the nal
trumpet, the last day, when Christ returns in great glory.”8
In a similar way, amillennialists also believe that Acts 24:15—which
speaks of “a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked”—indicates a
single resurrection encompassing both groups of people. Amillennialists
oen note that the word “resurrection” in Acts 24:15 is singular, not plural.9
As Hoekema asks, “Can two resurrections a thousand years apart properly
be called a resurrection?”10
According to amillennialists, because the righteous and the wicked will
be raised at the Second Coming of Christ, a thousand-year kingdom
between the resurrection of the righteous and the resurrection of the wicked
is precluded. As Riddlebarger writes, “Scripture clearly teaches that the
resurrection and judgment of the righteous and unrighteous will occur at
the same time, thus eliminating the possibility of an earthly millennial age to
dawn aer the Lord’s return.”11

e Premillennial Response
In response to this objection, Daniel 12:2, John 5:28–29, and Acts 24:15 do
not actually eliminate the possibility of two distinct resurrections separated
by a period of time. In fact, all three passages speak of a resurrection of the
righteous and a resurrection of the wicked—and always in the same order as
in Revelation 2012—and they neither state nor require that the two
resurrections happen simultaneously. ey simply do not specify one way or
the other.13 As premillennialist Wayne Grudem explains:

All of these verses, in the absence of Revelation 20:5–6, might or

might not be speaking of a single future time of resurrection. But
with the explicit teaching of Revelation 20:5–6 about two
resurrections, these verses must be understood to refer to the future
certainty of a resurrection for each type of person, without
specifying that those resurrections will be separated in time.14

Even John 5:28–29, which speaks of “an hour” in which these two
resurrections will occur, does not require that both resurrections take place
at the same time. John frequently uses the word “hour” (w{ra) in reference to
an extended period of time (John 16:2), sometimes as long as the entire
present age (John 4:21, 23; 1 John 2:18). In fact, this is how the apostle uses
the word just three verses earlier in John 5:25.15 As Craig Blaising argues, “If
the eschatological hour can be extended over two thousand years, it is not
impossible that a thousand years might transpire between the resurrection
of the just and the resurrection of the unjust.”16
As discussed in chapter 1, sometimes a given biblical prophecy will
predict two or more future events and present them in such a way that it
appears they will occur simultaneously, but later revelation indicates a
signi cant gap of time which separates their ful llment. Henry Virkler
explains that this kind of prophetic telescoping can be likened to one’s
perception of a mountain range on the horizon:

When one views a mountain range from a distance, the peaks appear
to be quite near to one another. However, on closer examination it
becomes evident that wide valleys and many miles separate the
individual peaks. When the prophets looked toward the future, they
 also saw things that appeared to them to be side by side, yet as the
time of ful llment approaches, signi cant gaps become visible.17

As J. Barton Payne observes, “Biblical prophecy may leap from one

prominent peak in predictive topography to another, without notice of the
valley between, which may involve no inconsiderable lapse in chronology.”18
For example, there is no clear evidence in Isaiah 9:6–7 alone that a
lengthy interval of time would separate the birth of Christ at His rst
coming (Isa 9:6a) from the reign of Christ at His second coming (Isa 9:6b–
7), and yet later revelation clari es the existence of this temporal gap
between them. Likewise, the interval between the rst coming in Zechariah
9:9 and the second coming in Zechariah 9:10 could not be perceived in that
passage alone, and yet subsequent revelation clari ed that what the prophet
depicted as a single event must now be recognized as involving two.
In the same way, when it comes to the future resurrection, what the
earlier writers of Scripture seemed to depict as a single resurrection of both
the righteous and the wicked (Dan 12:2; John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15) must
now be recognized as involving two resurrections, a resurrection of the
righteous and a resurrection of the wicked a thousand years later (Rev 20).
In other words, while these other passages do not specify the timing of the
two resurrections, in Revelation 20:4–5 this time element is speci ed: “ey
came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. e rest of the
dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed” (Rev
20:4b–5a). As Robert Saucy writes:

ere is no unambiguous evidence for a so-called general

resurrection at the end of the age in which both the saved and the
unsaved will participate. ere are references to the resurrection of
both, but none explicitly demonstrates that there is only one such
resurrection or that the saved and unsaved are resurrected at the
same time (e.g., Da 12:2; Jn 5:28–29). ere is, therefore, nothing
preventing us from viewing these as general statements about the
resurrection of all people that will occur at different times in accord
with the rather plain teaching of Revelation 20:4–5.19
 An additional argument for a gap between the resurrection of the
righteous and the resurrection of the wicked comes from Philippians 3:11.
In this verse, the apostle Paul looks ahead to the day when he will attain to
“the resurrection from the dead” (th;n ejxanavstasin th;n ejk nekrw:n). As
several premillennialists have noted, Paul’s reference to “the resurrection
from the dead”—rather than “the resurrection of the dead”—implies a
partial resurrection in which some are raised from the dead while others are
le in a state of death.20 In fact, the designation “resurrection from the dead”
is consistently used either of Jesus (Acts 4:2; Rom 1:4; 1 Pet 1:3; cf. Acts
17:31) or of believers (Luke 20:35; Phil 3:11) as those who are raised out
from among others who remain dead, but never of all the dead in general.21
When the biblical writers refer to the resurrection of the dead in general
(Acts 17:32; 23:6; 24:21; 1 Cor 15:12, 13, 21; Heb 6:2), they use the genitive
nekrw:n—“resurrection of the dead”—a subjective genitive which simply
indicates that the dead are raised to life. In contrast, the use of the
prepositional phrase ejk nekrw:n in Luke 20:35 and Phil 3:11—“resurrection
from the dead”—indicates being resurrected out from among the dead. e
prepositional phrase ejk nekrw:n is used the same way in combination with
various verbs to refer to the resurrection of Lazarus (John 12:1, 9, 17), Jesus
(Acts 3:15; 4:10; 10:41; 13:30), and people in general (Heb 11:19) as those
who are raised out from among those who remain dead. erefore, when
Philippians 3:11 (and Luke 20:35) describe believers as experiencing a
“resurrection from the dead” (th;n ejxanavstasin th;n ejk nekrw:n), this
implies an initial resurrection of those who are in Christ as separate and
distinct from a later resurrection of those who are not.22 is resurrection of
the righteous is singled out elsewhere in Scripture, being labeled “a better
resurrection” (Heb 11:35) and “the resurrection of the righteous” (Luke
14:14).
However, even though this argument makes a strong case for a
distinction between the two resurrections, it falls short of actually proving a
signi cant interval of time separating them,23 because the amillennialist
could simply argue that the resurrection of the wicked occurs immediately
aer the resurrection of the righteous despite the distinction between the
two.24 And yet the distinction that Luke 20:35 and Philippians 3:11 make
between the resurrection of the righteous and the resurrection of the wicked
—with the former occurring prior to the latter—does supplement the clear
testimony in Revelation 20 of two resurrections separated by one thousand
years and thereby provide additional support for the premillennial view.25

THE JUDGMENT OF ALL MANKIND

According to amillennialism, not only will the resurrection of all mankind
take place at the Second Coming, but so will the judgment of all mankind,
both the righteous and the wicked. Because this universal judgment will
occur at the return of Christ and usher in the eternal state, amillennialists
argue that there is no room for a thousand-year gap between the Second
Coming and the nal judgment, thus eliminating the possibility of an
intermediate kingdom. To prove that the judgment of all mankind will occur
at the Second Coming and initiate the eternal state, amillennialists point to
Matthew 25:31–46 and 2 essalonians 1:6–10.26

e Argument from Matthew 25:31–46

e passage most commonly cited by amillennialists is Matthew 25:31–46,
where Jesus prophesies of separating the sheep and the goats at His Second
Coming.27 Matthew 25 indicates that when Jesus returns in glory, He will
welcome the righteous into eternal life (vv. 34, 46) and disperse the wicked
into eternal punishment (vv. 41, 46). According to amillennialists, the
judgment in this passage is equivalent to the judgment of Revelation 20:11–
15, and therefore Matthew 25:31–46 explicitly teaches “that the nal
judgment occurs when our Lord returns.”28 Riddlebarger argues that this
presents an insurmountable problem for premillennialism:

Where is the one-thousand-year gap between Christ’s return and the

nal judgment taught in the Scriptures? It is not there. e gap must
be inserted even though doing so violates the plain sense of the
passage and the premillennial insistence on a literal interpretation.29

In contrast to the amillennial view, premillennialists generally believe

that Matthew 25:31–46 describes not the nal judgment of all mankind, but
rather the judgment of the nations which exist when Jesus returns,
speci cally concerning either their entrance into the millennial kingdom or
their consignment to eternal re.30 For this reason, most premillennialists
believe that the judgments in Matthew 25:31–46 and Revelation 20:11–15
should be distinguished, the former taking place when Jesus returns to
establish His earthly kingdom and the latter occurring when the wicked are
resurrected aer His millennial reign.
Several differences between the two judgments demonstrate that
Matthew 25:31–46 and Revelation 20:11–15 do not describe the same event.
e rst and most obvious difference is that the judgment of Matthew 25
involves both believers and unbelievers—the sheep and the goats—whereas
only unbelievers are judged in Revelation 20.31 Amillennialists dispute this
claim that the judgement of Revelation 20:11–15 is restricted to
unbelievers,32 but at least four reasons lead to the conclusion that the nal
judgment of Revelation 20 must include only unbelievers: (a) the most
obvious antecedent of “the dead” in verse 12 is “the rest of the dead” in
Revelation 20:5, unbelievers who do not take part in the rst resurrection;
(b) the only stated outcome of the judgment in Revelation 20 is the lake of
re (Rev 20:15), with the Book of Life being mentioned “only to show that
the names of these dead are not written there;”33 (c) there is no emphasis in
Revelation 20:11–15 on the future resurrection as an object of the believer’s
hope;34 and (d) this view ts the broader context of Revelation 19–20, which
sets forth God’s ultimate victory over everything corrupted by sin—the beast
and the false prophet (19:19–21), Satan (20:1–10), heaven and earth (20:11;
cf. 21:1), and now His unbelieving human enemies (20:12–15). For these
reasons, the judgment of Revelation 20 has reference only to unbelievers,
and therefore the passages must not describe the same event.
A second difference between the judgments in Matthew 25:31–46 and
Revelation 20:11–15 concerns the identity of those who are judged. Unlike
in Revelation 20:12–13, where “the dead” are resurrected to stand before the
great white throne,35 the objects of judgment in Matthew 25:31–46 are the
nations of the world who are alive when Jesus returns and who are gathered
from all over the earth (cf. Matt 24:31).36 Not only is there no mention of
any physical resurrection in Matthew 25,37 but Jesus identi es the objects of
judgment as “the nations,” a designation which is never applied either
directly or indirectly to those who have died.38 In contrast, the objects of
judgment in Revelation 20 are gathered not from the four corners of the
earth where they live, but from the grave and the sea where their dead
bodies were buried (vv. 12–13).39
A third difference concerns the location of the two judgments.40 In
Matthew 25:31–46, the judgment takes place on earth, for when the Son of
Man returns in glory He comes from heaven to earth and gathers the
nations from the ends of the world (cf. Matt 24:31). In contrast, at the time
of the judgment in Revelation 20:11–15, heaven and earth have ed away
from God’s presence, “and no place was found for them” because they have
been destroyed (v. 11; cf. Rev 21:1). is poses a problem for the amillennial
view that these are the same judgment, but it corresponds well to the
premillennial view that (a) the judgment of Matthew 25 occurs when Jesus
returns to establish his earthly kingdom, and (b) the judgment of Revelation
20 takes place aer His millennial reign, just before the creation of the new
heavens and earth. However, it may be possible for the amillennialist to
harmonize this discrepancy by saying that when Jesus returns to earth, He
separates the sheep and the goats, destroys the heavens and the earth so that
“no place was found for them” (Rev 20:11), and then judges all mankind at
the great white throne. For this reason, this third difference fails to
demonstrate conclusively that the two judgments must be distinguished.
A fourth difference concerns the basis on which the people are judged in
Matthew 25, which is the way the sheep and the goats have treated “the
least” of Jesus’ brothers (Matt 25:40, 45).41 Some believe that the least of His
brothers refers to all who are hungry, distressed, and needy, and therefore
that the basis of acceptance into the kingdom is established by deeds of
mercy and compassion in general. e weakness of this view is that there is
no parallel in the New Testament in which the least of Jesus’ “brothers” are
identi ed with the poor and needy without distinction.42 In addition, even
though there may be a secondary sense in which all humans are “brothers”
and God’s children, Jesus does not use the word “brothers” this way in
Matthew’s gospel.43 is is not a plausible interpretation.
For this reason, most interpret the least of Jesus’ brothers as having a
narrower referent. Some say it refers to Christian brothers in general,
followers of Christ who oen face hunger, thirst, illness, and imprisonment
as they seek to spread the gospel.44 Others say it refers to the apostles and
other Christian missionaries, the treatment of whom determines the fate of
all men (those who receive them receive Christ, and those who reject them
reject Christ).45 Still others see it as a reference to the Jewish brothers of
Jesus who are converted during the Tribulation46 and who either (a) are
alive when He returns47 or (b) return with Him because they were
previously martyred.48
Regardless of which of these three views is correct, because the
treatment of the least of the brothers of Jesus is the basis of this separation of
the sheep and the goats, Matthew 25:31–46 cannot refer to the universal
judgment of all mankind. As J. T. Cooper observes, “ere are millions upon
millions who have died to whom these reasons would have been wholly
inapplicable. What multitudes, in the ages of the past, have passed away who
never heard of the name of Jesus or his brethren!”49 For this reason, a
judgment based on how people have treated the least of the brothers of Jesus
cannot be understood as a universal judgment of all mankind throughout
history, as amillennialism teaches.
e h and most compelling reason to distinguish between the two
judgments is that the separation of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25
takes place at the Second Coming of Christ—“when the Son of Man comes
in His glory” (v. 31)—whereas the judgment in Revelation 20:11–15 occurs a
thousand years later, aer the millennial reign of Christ (Rev 19–20).
According to the book of Revelation, the Second Coming of Christ (Rev
19:11–21) and the nal judgment of unbelievers (Rev 20:11–15) will be
separated by the thousand-year reign of Christ (Rev 20:1–10), and therefore
these two judgments cannot take place at the same time.50 For this reason,
premillennialists believe that when the sheep are invited to inherit the
kingdom in Matthew 25:34, they enter the millennial kingdom as the initial
phase of the age to come.51
It is more difficult, however, for premillennialism to account for the
judgment of the goats. In Matthew 25:41, when Jesus says to those on His
le, “Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal re which has been
prepared for the devil and for his angels,” this appears to match the
description in Revelation 20:15: “And if anyone’s name was not found
written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of re.”52 For this
reason, amillennialists argue that the judgment of Matthew 25:31–46 must
be the nal judgment of Revelation 20:11–15, which ushers in the new
heavens and new earth of Revelation 21, thereby eliminating the possibility
of an intermediate kingdom between the Second Coming and the eternal
state.
ere are three different ways that premillennialists have responded to
this argument. e rst response is that Matthew 25 contains an example of
prophetic foreshortening, a compression of future events in which the divine
sentence of eternal punishment is rendered at the Second Coming, but the
actual consignment to eternal re does not occur until a thousand years
later.53 According to this view, the righteous enter the millennial kingdom at
the Second Coming, but the wicked are not immediately thrown into the
lake of re, even though this eternal sentence is rendered at the return of
Christ. In this way, at the judgment of Matthew 25 the eternal re prepared
for the devil becomes the immutable and ultimate destination of these
unbelievers without being their immediate experience. As Robert omas
explains, “e ‘goats’ of this judgment will be in a place of waiting with the
rest of the lost until time for the second resurrection.”54
is view has a number of strengths. First, the clear precedent of
prophetic foreshortening elsewhere in Scripture makes this a legitimate way
to harmonize Matthew 25:31–46 and Revelation 20. Second, there is a clear
example of prophetic foreshortening earlier in the very same discourse,
where Jesus describes the future destruction of the temple in AD 70 and His
Second Coming hundreds of years later (Matt 24:1–41), with no clear
indication of a lengthy gap of time in between.55 ird, this view interprets
the “eternal re” in Matthew 25:41 as the lake of re—rather than some kind
of intermediate punishment—which corresponds to its description as the
re “which has been prepared for the devil” (cf. Rev 20:10, 15).
e second premillennial response is that the consignment of
unbelievers to the eternal re takes place immediately, but it is carried out in
two phases. In the same way that believers rst inherit the millennial
kingdom (Matt 25:34) and then later the eternal state (Rev 21:1–4),
unbelievers rst experience the initial punishment described in Luke 16:19–
31, and then aer the thousand years (Rev 20:1–10) their bodies are
resurrected at the great white throne and cast into the lake of re (Rev
20:11–15).56 According to Robert Saucy, this view takes the word “eternal”
in Matthew 25:41 and 46 as a qualitative term describing the experience of
believers and unbelievers:

A person may presently enter into life that has the quality of “eternal
life” and still have a fuller experience of that life in the future. So
these unbelievers at the judgment of the sheep and goats may be cast
into “eternal re,” a qualitative judgment of the lost, and already
begin to experience that judgment in the intermediate state of Hades
before Hades is cast into the nal “lake of re” (Rev 20:14). us they
may be in a punishment during the millennium that shares the same
quality (“eternal”) as is found more intensively later in the lake of re
of the eternal state.57

Premillennialist Eugene Pond claims that the phrase “inherit the

kingdom” in Matthew 25:34 supports this view by establishing a parallel
between the two phases of the destinies of both the sheep and the goats:

is kingdom occurs in two phases, the millennial reign of Christ

and the eternal state. e sheep are invited to inherit God’s (earthly)
kingdom in the millennium, when the Lord will subdue all His
enemies (1 Cor. 15:24–28). erefore this judgment admits at least
the righteous to a temporary state before the nal eternal one. It is
not unreasonable to understand the fate of the goats in a similar
sequence of phases. First, following the judgment in Matthew 25,
they will physically die and go to hades for temporary torment
(similar to that of the rich man in Luke 16:19–31). Second, at the
great white throne judgment their eternal death is completed with
their being consigned to the lake of re.58

An additional argument comes from Isaiah 24:21–23, which sets a precedent

for two phases of the divine judgment of the wicked, the rst at the return of
Christ and the second aer an intervening period of “many days” (Isa
24:22).59 is corresponds well to an initial judgment of the goats at the
Second Coming (Matt 25:31–46) and the nal judgment of the wicked aer
a thousand years (Rev 20:11–15).
 A third and nal premillennial response is that the unbelievers who are
alive when Jesus returns will be consigned immediately to the lake of re in
Matthew 25 and therefore will not take part in the nal judgment of
Revelation 20:11–15. Although this view is not common among
premillennialists,60 it appears to be consistent with the biblical data, and
several arguments can be made in its favor. First, this view is most easily
harmonized with the straightforward reading of Matthew 25:41 and 46,
which appears to portray unbelievers being thrown into the eternal re at
the very time that this judgment takes place. Second, the description of the
goats’ destiny as “the eternal re which has been prepared for the devil and
for his angels” (Matt 25:41) seems to imply that they are consigned to this
re prior to Satan, who is not consigned there until the end of the
millennium (Rev 20:10).61 ird, Scripture clearly teaches that at least two
individuals—the beast and the false prophet—will be cast into the lake of
re at the time of the Second Coming (Rev 19:20), a thousand years before
the nal judgment in Revelation 20:11–15; so there is no categorical reason
that these unbelievers could not also be thrown into the lake of re when
Jesus returns. Fourth, if the goats are resurrected and judged again in
Revelation 20:11–15,62 their physical death must take place at the Second
Coming, but Matthew 25 says nothing about their death as part of this initial
judgment.63 It cannot be proven that Scripture requires this view, but it
certainly appears to be consistent with what the Bible teaches.
It is difficult to be certain which of these premillennial responses is the
most faithful way to harmonize the two judgments, but each of them
provides a viable alternative to understanding the judgments in Matthew 25
and Revelation 20 as one and the same. For this reason—and in light of the
clarity of John’s affirmation of an intermediate kingdom in Revelation 20—
Matthew 25:31–46 fails to prove that the universal judgment of all mankind
will occur at the Second Coming and immediately initiate the eternal state.

e Argument from 2 essalonians 1:6–10

Amillennialists also cite 2 essalonians 1:6–10 in support of the view that
the nal judgment of unbelievers will take place at the Second Coming.64 To
encourage the persecuted believers in essalonica, the apostle Paul writes:
 For aer all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who
afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well
when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty
angels in aming re, dealing out retribution to those who do not
know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord
Jesus. ese will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from
the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He
comes to be glori ed in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at
among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed
(2 ess 1:6–10).

In this passage, Paul speaks of the divine judgment of the wicked as

being administered “when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven” (v.
7),65 “when He comes to be glori ed in His saints on that day” (v. 10). For
this reason, amillennialists believe that the nal judgment of unbelievers will
take place not aer a thousand-year intermediate kingdom but at the time of
the Second Coming of Christ.66 As Riddlebarger argues, “If judgment day
and the second advent occur at the same time, all forms of premillennialism
collapse.”67
In response to this argument, there are two ways that 2 essalonians
1:6–10 can be harmonized with the existence of an intermediate kingdom
(Rev 20:1–10) separating the Second Coming of Christ (Rev 19:11–21) and
the nal judgment of unbelievers (Rev 20:11–15). e rst way is to appeal
to the dynamic of prophetic foreshortening.68 According to this view, 2
essalonians 1:6–10 presents the Second Coming and the nal judgment
together as if the two events will happen simultaneously, even though a
lengthy gap of time—the millennial reign of Christ—will separate the two.
As Richard Mayhue explains:

Paul is not writing a detailed, chronological, or even precise

prophetic treatise here, but rather is wanting to give the
essalonians hope that, in the end, God’s righteousness would
prevail. Like Old Testament prophets (cf. Is. 61:1–2; 1 Pet 1:10–11),
Paul has compressed the details so that the range of time is not
apparent, nor are all the details. e apostle is plainly assuring the
 essalonians that there will certainly be a coming day of retribution
for their persecutors.69

In other words, details about the interval of time between the immediate
relief of the saints and the ultimate retribution of the wicked were not
included because they did not serve Paul’s primary purpose in writing. Paul’s
goal was not to set forth an exhaustive presentation of eschatological events,
but rather to assure his persecuted readers that the justice of God would
prevail. erefore, the apostle focused on comforting the essalonian
church by emphasizing the certainty of this coming relief and retribution,
without clarifying the existence of an interval of time between the two.70
e second way that 2 essalonians 1:6–10 can be harmonized with an
intermediate kingdom is very similar to the rst. According to this view, the
divine retribution of the wicked begins at the Second Coming of Christ (Rev
19:11–21; Matt 25:31–46);71 it continues in the intermediate state as
unbelievers experience conscious torment during the millennial kingdom
(cf. Luke 16:19–31); and it culminates when they are resurrected at the nal
judgment and cast into the lake of re (Rev 20:11–15).72 In 2 essalonians
1:6–10, the apostle Paul compresses the stages of this divine judgment into a
simpli ed portrayal of God bringing relief to the essalonians when Jesus
returns by dealing out retribution to their unbelieving persecutors.73 e
strength of this view is that it affirms precisely what is taught in 2
essalonians 1—that the divine retribution of unbelievers will begin at the
Second Coming (vv. 7, 10) and will continue into the eternal state as they
“pay the penalty of eternal destruction” (v. 9).74
To harmonize Paul’s presentation of divine retribution in 2
essalonians 1:6–10 with the two-stage judgment in Isaiah 24:21–23 and
Revelation 19–20, it is helpful to recognize that the former can set forth the
eschatological judgment of God with less precision without contradicting
the more detailed presentation of the latter. In the process, it is helpful to
remember that Paul’s purpose in 2 essalonians 1 was to comfort the
persecuted church in essalonica, not to set forth all of the future events
concerning the eschatological judgment of unbelievers. erefore, even
though the judgment of God’s enemies is portrayed elsewhere as taking
place in two stages separated by a lengthy period of time—being described
as “many days” in Isaiah 24:22 and a “thousand years” in Revelation 20:1–6
—it did not serve Paul’s purpose in 2 essalonians 1 to make those same
distinctions. ere is nothing in 2 essalonians 1 which precludes the
existence of an intermediate kingdom or the straightforward reading of
Revelation 19–21.

1 Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: e Amillennial Alternative (Ross-shire, Scotland:

Mentor, 2013), 165; also see Jonathan Menn, Biblical Eschatology (Eugene, OR:
Resource Publications, 2013), 344–45. According to Storms, “At the time of the second
coming there will occur the nal resurrection, the nal judgment, the end of sin, the
end of death, and the creation of the new heavens and new earth” (Kingdom Come,
165).
2 Cornelis P. Venema, e Promise of the Future (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2000),
248; Anthony Hoekema, e Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1979), 240; William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1966), 103. Menn also cites Matt 12:39–
42//Luke 11:29–32 as a clear indication that there is but one resurrection of both the
righteous and the wicked (Biblical Eschatology, 344).
3 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 240.
4 Ibid.; emphasis original.
5 Storms, Kingdom Come, 164.
6 Ibid. According to Kim Riddlebarger, “Both Daniel and Jesus spoke of one resurrection
in which the two distinct groups simultaneously participate—believers and unbelievers
—each receiving the appropriate recompense. ere is no hint anywhere in these two
texts, implied or otherwise, that the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous are
separated by a period of one thousand years, an essential feature of premillennialism”
(Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, expanded
ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013], 161).
7 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 333.
8 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 163.
9 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 241; Robert B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in ree
Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 1999), 101.
10 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 241; emphasis original.
11 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 166.
12 is is especially clear in John 5:29 where Jesus speaks of two different physical
resurrections: “a resurrection of life” (ajnavstasin zwh:V) and “a resurrection of
judgment” (ajnavstasin krivsewV).
13 Wayne Grudem, Systematic eology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1994), 1119; Herman A. Hoyt, “A Dispensational
 Premillennial Response,” in e Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G.
Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979), 195. According to Feinberg, Dan
12:2 “does not reveal, and it should not be made to teach, exactly what period of time
elapses between the resurrection of the rst group and that of the second” (Charles L.
Feinberg, Millennialism: e Two Major Views, 3rd ed. [Chicago: Moody Press, 1980],
347).
14 Grudem, Systematic eology, 1120.
15 Ibid., 1119.
16 Craig A. Blaising, “A Premillennial Response to Robert B. Strimple,” in ree Views on
the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing,
1999), 150.
17 Henry A. Virkler and Karelynne Gerber Ayayo, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes
of Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 169–70. Also
see William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to
Biblical Interpretation (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 1993), 304–5; Walter C. Kaiser
and Moisés Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: e Search for Meaning
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1994), 144; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., e Use of the
Old Testament in the New (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1985), 63.
18 J. Barton Payne, e Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1980), 137; cf. Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 201. According to Kaiser, “As a
result of prophetic foreshortening, the prophet may have seen only events A, B, and Z,
and have had no idea of what intervened” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Back Toward the
Future: Hints for Interpreting Biblical Prophecy [Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers,
1989], 122).
19 Robert L. Saucy, e Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: e Interface Between
Dispensational and Non-Dispensational eology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 1993), 288.
20 Craig A. Blaising, “e Kingdom that Comes with Jesus: Premillennialism and the
Harmony of Scripture,” in e Return of Christ: A Premillennial Perspective, ed. David
L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2011), 148; Blaising, “A
Premillennial Response,” 151; Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 286; Feinberg,
Millennialism, 347–48, 351; Robert D. Culver, Systematic eology: Biblical and
Historical (Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2005), 1057–58.
21 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 286; Feinberg, Millennialism, 348.
22 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 286. In fact, as Blaising notes, Paul coins a new
word for resurrection in Phil 3:11 by adding the pre x ejk to ajnavstasiV, resulting in
ejxanavstasiV and thereby doubling the use of the preposition in the phrase
ejxanavstasin th;n ejk nekrw:n (“resurrection out from the dead”) (“e Kingdom that
Comes with Jesus,” 148). BDAG de nes ejxanavstasiV as referring to “the state or
condition of coming up from among the dead” (345).
23 Feinberg overstates the premillennial argument from Phil 3:11 in saying that this verse
“teaches as clearly as any that there will be more than one general resurrection”
 (Millennialism, 351).
24 In doing so, however, amillennialists would have to slightly modify their view that
there will be “one resurrection in which the two distinct groups simultaneously
participate” (Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 161), asserting instead that the
resurrection of the righteous will take place rst and be immediately followed by the
resurrection of the wicked.
25 As additional evidence that “the resurrection from the dead” in Phil 3:11 does not refer
to a general resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked, Saucy points out that
this resurrection is something that Paul aspires to attain to. According to Saucy: “If
Paul believed in one general resurrection at the end in which all people, the saved and
the lost, would participate, it is difficult to understand his use of this language in
relation to his personal participation. ere would be no question of his being a part of
such a resurrection. If his desire was to be part of those resurrected to life as opposed
to those destined for judgment (and if the latter were raised at the same time), we
would have expected Paul to add this quali er. But he says simply that he hopes to
attain to ‘the resurrection from the dead,’ apparently with reference to a distinct
resurrection of the righteous—John’s ‘ rst’ resurrection. Only such an understanding
appears to do justice to his concern to be part of it” (Progressive Dispensationalism,
287).
26 As additional evidence that the nal judgment takes place at the Second Coming—and
not a thousand years later—amillennialists also cite Matt 13:39–40 and 49–50, which
make a connection between the judgment of unbelievers and the end of the age
(Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 99; Storms, Kingdom Come, 161; Cox,
Amillennialism Today, 115–16).
27 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 164; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 185;
Samuel E. Waldron, e End Times Made Simple: How Could Everyone Be So Wrong
About Biblical Prophecy? (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2003), 55–57; Cox,
Amillennialism Today, 116–17.
28 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 276. According to Riddlebarger, “When Jesus
returns in glory with all his angels, he assigns the nal outcome to both righteous and
unrighteous. ere is no evidence [in Matt 25:31–46] of the linchpin of
premillennialism, a one-thousand-year gap between the resurrection of the righteous
and unrighteous” (164).
29 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 277.
30 Eugene W. Pond, “Who Are the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25:31–46?” BibSac 159,
no. 3 (July–Sept 2002): 299–300; John F. Walvoord, Matthew: y Kingdom Come
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), 200. In contrast, a few premillennialists have argued
that the judgment of Matt 25:31–46 will occur aer the millennial kingdom and
should be identi ed with the judgment of Rev 20:11–15 (Robert H. Gundry, e
Church and the Tribulation: A Biblical Examination of Posttribulationism [Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1973], 168–69; George E. Ladd, “e Parable of the
Sheep and the Goats in Recent Interpretation,” in New Dimensions in New Testament
Study, eds. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney [Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
 1974], 196), but this is clearly a minority position. For a helpful response to this view,
see Eugene W. Pond, “e Background and Timing of the Judgment of the Sheep and
Goats,” BibSac 159, no. 2 (April–June 2002): 215–18.
31 Pond, “e Background and Timing of the Judgment,” 219; J. T. Cooper, “e
Judgment, or Judgments,” in Premillennial Essays, ed. Nathaniel West (Minneapolis:
Bryant Baptist Publications, 1981), 261–62.
32 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 242–43.
33 Robert L. omas, Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1995), 431; cf. Feinberg, Millennialism, 360.
34 J. Ramsey Michaels, “e First Resurrection: A Response,” WTJ 39, no. 1 (Fall 1976):
105.
35 e resurrection of the dead in verse 13—“the sea gave up the dead which were in it,
and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them”—is a parenthetical
explanation of how the dead came to be standing before the throne in verse 12 to be
judged. is resurrection of unbelievers was alluded to previously in Rev 20:5: “e
rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.”
36 Blaising, “e Kingdom that Comes with Jesus,” 158; Pond, “e Background and
Timing of the Judgment,” 214; Pond, “Who Are the Sheep and Goats?,” 299; Cooper,
“e Judgment, or Judgments,” 260–61.
37 Cooper, “e Judgment, or Judgments,” 253; Feinberg, Millennialism, 362.
38 Cooper, “e Judgment, or Judgments,” 253; John F. Walvoord, e Millennial
Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1959), 287; Stanley D. Toussaint,
Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980), 288.
39 As Craig Blaising writes, “e ‘sheep’ in that passage are nowhere said to be raised
from the dead, but are gathered from the peoples alive at that time and received by the
descended Lord into His kingdom” (“e Kingdom that Comes with Jesus,” 158).
40 Pond, “Who Are the Sheep and Goats?,” 299; Cooper, “e Judgment, or Judgments,”
261; Walvoord, e Millennial Kingdom, 285; Feinberg, Millennialism, 362.
41 Pond argues that the two judgments should be distinguished because “in Matthew 25
the criterion of judgment is whether a person has done acts of mercy … whereas in
Revelation 20:12–13, 15 the basis of judgment will be a person’s works” (“e
Background and Timing of the Judgment,” 219). But this alone is insufficient to
demonstrate that the two judgments must be distinguished, because acts of mercy and
a person’s works could be viewed as complementary descriptions of the basis of the
same judgment, with the former being a subcategory of the latter. e key in Matt
25:31–46 is that Jesus refers not simply to the treatment of the needy in general but to
the treatment of the least of His brothers.
42 D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in EBC, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 1981), 8:519.
43 James Montgomery Boice, e Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001),
541; Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, NAC vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 1992), 378.
44 Carson, “Matthew,” 8:520; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His
Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1994), 514; John A. Broadus, Commentary on Matthew (Grand Rapids:
Kregel Publications, 1990), 510–11; Heinrich August Meyer, Critical and Exegetical
Handbook to the Gospel of Matthew, 6th ed., trans. and ed. Peter Christie and William
Stewart (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1879), 181. is view fails to preserve an adequate
distinction between the sheep and the least of Jesus’ brothers. As Robert omas
writes, “e brothers differ from the sheep and the sheep must be Christ’s spiritual
brothers, so the brothers cannot refer to the same group” (Robert L. omas, “Jesus’
View of Eternal Punishment,” MSJ 9, no. 2 [Fall 1998]: 155; also see Toussaint, Behold
the King, 291).
45 Blomberg, Matthew, 378. Not only does this view fail to preserve an adequate
distinction between the sheep and the least of Jesus’ brothers, but because the
proclamation of the gospel to the nations (Matt 24:14; 28:18–20) and the suffering that
Jesus envisages for His disciples (Matt 24:9–13) are not restricted to the apostles and
missionaries, this de nition is not inclusive enough (Carson, “Matthew,” 8:519). In
addition, this view has difficulty explaining why Jesus would refer to apostles and
missionaries as “the least” of His brethren (omas, “Jesus’ View of Eternal
Punishment,” 155; Meyer, Gospel of Matthew, 181).
46 e primary strength of this view is that it preserves the distinction between the three
groups of individuals mentioned in this passage by seeing the least of Jesus’ brothers as
Jews converted and persecuted (and perhaps even martyred) during the Tribulation,
and the sheep and the goats as Gentile believers and unbelievers, respectively, from
among the nations of the world. It also affirms the standard New Testament use of tav
e[qnh as a reference to Gentiles as distinct from Jews.
47 omas, “Jesus’ View of Eternal Punishment,” 155–56.
48 Eugene W. Pond, “Who Are ‘the Least’ of Jesus’ Brothers in Matthew 25:40?” BibSac
159, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2002): 436–48. According to Pond: “It seems best to recognize
that Jesus’ ‘brothers,’ who are called ‘the least,’ are believers who will be slain for their
faith during the Tribulation and who will return with the risen Lord at His second
coming. e judgment of the sheep and goats will be a judgment of all non-Jews who
will be alive at the end of the Tribulation period. eir eternal destinies—inheriting
the kingdom or departing to ery punishment—will be based on their actions that
re ect whether they believe or reject the message of witnesses for the Son of Man as
Savior and King. ese witnesses are called the ‘brothers’ of Jesus Christ because they
will be His devoted disciples, and they are called ‘the least’ of Jesus’ brothers because
many of them will have been put to death for their faith” (448).
49 Cooper, “e Judgment, or Judgments,” 255.
50 See chapters 11–14 for a thorough defense of this interpretation of Revelation 20.
51 Pond, “e Background and Timing of the Judgment,” 220.
52 is is further supported by the description in Matt 25:46 of the wicked going away
“into eternal punishment.”
53 omas, “Jesus’ View of Eternal Punishment,” 151. According to omas: “e case
resembles Jesus’ description of resurrection and future judgment in John 5:24–30,
where He spoke of two future resurrections without referring to elapsed time between
them. He likewise speaks here of an assignment to the kingdom and an assignment to
eternal re without referring to the time interval that will separate them. e nal
relegation of the lost to the lake of re will not come until aer the second resurrection
that will follow the enjoyment of the temporal phase of the kingdom by those assigned
thereto.”
54 Ibid.
55 is view of the Olivet Discourse is affirmed by many amillennialists, including
Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 189–90.
56 To support this view, Cooper appeals to Jude 7 and Rev 14:10 as examples of
unbelievers experiencing “eternal re” and being “tormented with re and brimstone”
during the intermediate state (Cooper, “e Judgment, or Judgments,” 259–60). But
neither of these passages describes divine punishment in the intermediate state. e
judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah in Jude 7 refers to the temporal judgment of their
physical destruction (even though it is presented in Jude 7 as a typological
foreshadowing of the eternal punishment of the wicked in general), and the torment in
Rev 14:10 looks ahead to the future judgment of the wicked described in Rev 20:11–15.
57 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 288.
58 Pond, “e Background and Timing of the Judgment,” 220.
59 See the discussion of Isa 24:21–23 in chapter 5.
60 Pond refers to this as a “less likely alternative,” but he presents no arguments against
this view (“Who Are the Sheep and Goats?,” 300).
61 In contrast, if they are not consigned to this re until the nal judgment of Rev 20:11–
15, then Satan will have been thrown into the lake of re prior to these unbelievers.
62 According to Rev 20:11–15, the objects of the nal judgment are “the dead” (vv. 12–13)
who are resurrected and then cast into the lake of re.
63 is argument is certainly not conclusive—for Scripture is rarely exhaustive in its
narrative and prophetic descriptions—but this “omission” appears to be consistent
with the view that these unbelievers are cast (body and soul) into the lake of re at the
time of Christ’s return.
64 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 227, 255; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 91–
92, 247; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 99, 163–64; Strimple,
“Amillennialism,” 103; Vern S. Poythress, “2 essalonians 1 Supports Amillennialism,”
JETS 37, no. 4 (Dec 1994): 529–38.
65 Paul introduces this phrase in 2 ess 1:7 with the temporal use of the preposition ejn,
rendered “at” (ASV; HCSB) or “when” (NASB; ESV; NET; NIV; KJV; NKJV; NLT; RSV;
NCV) by most translations.
66 Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 103; Storms, Kingdom Come, 163–64. According to Storms,
“Since this judgment is elsewhere said to follow the millennium (Rev. 20:11–15), the
millennium itself must be coterminous with the present age” (164).
67 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 251. According to Riddlebarger, the New
Testament gives “no hint of a delay in the judgment of unbelievers until aer the
thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth. e ‘white throne judgment’ (Rev. 20:11)
occurs at Christ’s return, not one thousand years later” (105).
68 Daniel B. Wallace, “New Testament Eschatology in the Light of Progressive
Revelation,” accessed on August 7, 2014, https://bible.org/article/new-testament-
eschatology-light-progressive-revelation. According to Wallace, “2 ess 1:9–10 seems
to ‘telescope’ the eschaton (in that there is no gap between the Lord’s return and the
eternal destruction of the wicked).”
69 Richard Mayhue, “Why a Pretribulation Rapture?” in Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A
Futuristic Premillennial Primer, eds. John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue (Chicago:
Moody Publishers, 2012), 101. In this context, Mayhue is defending a pre-tribulational
rapture rather than an intermediate kingdom, but his explanation applies equally to
both.
70 e weakness of this view is that 2 essalonians 1 appears to connect this divine
retribution directly to the time of the Second Coming—“when [ejn] the Lord Jesus will
be revealed from heaven” (v. 7) and “when [o{tan] He comes to be glori ed in His
saints on that day” (v. 10).
71 Rev 19:11–21 describes the destruction of those unbelieving armies which battle
against Christ at the Second Coming, and Matt 25:31–46 describes the judgment of the
unbelievers who do not ght in (and therefore survive) that war.
72 In 2 essalonians 1, it is possible that the participial phrase “dealing out retribution”
in verse 8 portrays the initial retribution unleashed on the day of Christ’s return,
whereas “the penalty of eternal destruction” in verse 9 focuses on retribution in the
eternal state, but it is not clear that Paul intended this distinction.
73 According to Craig Blaising, even though 2 essalonians 1 speaks of several events
that will happen “in that day,” Scripture does not depict the Day of the Lord as an
instantaneous event (“A Premillennial Response,” 150), which allows for the kind of
compression of eschatological judgments described here.
74 Aer all, one does not pay the entirety of “the penalty of eternal destruction” (2 ess
1:9) on the very day that Christ returns—it is an ongoing punishment that begins at a
point in time and continues endlessly. For this reason, not even the amillennialist
believes that 2 ess 1:6–10 is completely ful lled at the Second Coming, affirming
instead that this divine retribution begins at the Second Coming and continues into
the eternal state, which is precisely the view articulated here.
 Chapter 9

e Destruction and
Renewal of the Cosmos

INTRODUCTION

A ccording to the two-age model of amillennialism, the New Testament

teaches that the destruction and renewal of the cosmos will take place at the
Second Coming of Christ. is is said to have signi cant implications for the
intermediate kingdom of premillennialism. As amillennialist Cornelis
Venema writes:

Rather than teaching that the return of Christ will bring a

provisional phase of God’s kingdom, the millennium, which itself
will be surpassed in the nal state of God’s eternal kingdom, the New
Testament teaches that Christ’s return will introduce the nal state of
new heavens and a new earth.1

For this reason, amillennialists argue that the eschatology of the New
Testament does not allow for a millennial kingdom between the Second
Coming of Christ and the eternal state. To demonstrate that the destruction
and renewal of the cosmos will occur at the Second Coming, amillennialists
point to 2 Peter 3:10–13 and Romans 8:16–23.
 THE ARGUMENT FROM 2 PETER 3:10–13
In 2 Peter 3:10–13, the apostle Peter looks ahead to the Day of the Lord and
the judgment of God that will come upon the earth:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens
will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with
intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all
these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people
ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and
hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the
heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt
with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for
new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

According to the straightforward reading of this passage, when Jesus

returns on the Day of the Lord, the heavens will pass away, the elements will
be destroyed, the earth and its works will be burned up (vv. 10–12), and
these will be replaced with a new heavens and new earth (v. 13).2 Because
the Day of the Lord will be accompanied by the destruction and re-creation
of the universe, amillennialists argue that 2 Peter 3:10–13 “does not allow for
a thousand years intervening between the second coming of Christ and the
coming of the day of divine judgment and cosmic renewal.”3 According to
Sam Storms, there is no room in Peter’s scenario for the millennial kingdom
of premillennialism: “On the contrary, the present heavens and earth will be
judged at Christ’s return, at which time the new heavens and new earth (not
a millennium) shall emerge as an eternal dwelling for God’s people.”4 As
Kim Riddlebarger asks, where exactly is the “millennial gap” in this passage?
5

e Premillennial Response
ere are three primary ways that premillennialists have responded to this
argument. e rst and most common response is that the Day of the Lord
is an extended period of time that includes the coming of Christ, His
millennial reign, the nal judgment, and the creation of the new heavens
and new earth.6 Because this extensive period of divine intervention
encompasses all of these eschatological events, the destruction of the earth
described in 2 Peter 3:10 will occur not at the Second Coming but at the
close of the Day of the Lord, at the end of the millennium when all
wickedness in the earth will be judged in a nal way.7 erefore, even
though Peter does not mention a gap of time between the Second Coming
and the eternal state, 2 Peter 3:10–13 will be ful lled at the conclusion of the
future millennium, and this prophecy presents no difficulty for the existence
of an intermediate kingdom.8
is rst view is supported by Isaiah 24, which appears to describe the
Day of the Lord as encompassing not only an initial judgment at the Second
Coming of Christ (vv. 1–22a) but also an ultimate judgment aer an
extended period of “many days” (v. 22b):

So it will happen in that day, that the Lord will punish the host of
heaven on high, and the kings of the earth on earth. ey will be
gathered together like prisoners in the dungeon, and will be con ned
in prison; and aer many days they will be punished (Isa 24:21–22).

If the “many days” of Isaiah 24:22 can be equated with the thousand years of
Revelation 20—and if the subsequent judgment aer these “many days” also
takes place “in that day” (Isa 24:21)—Isaiah 24:21–22 provides evidence that
the Day of the Lord extends throughout the millennial reign of Christ and
includes the nal judgment aerward.9
e second premillennial response is very similar to the rst, especially
with regard to the timing of the judgment described in 2 Peter 3:10–13.
According to this view, biblical prophecies concerning the Day of the Lord
can be ful lled either at the Second Coming or at the end of the millennium.
Because the speci c destruction and renewal prophesied in 2 Peter 3:10–13
will occur at the end of the millennium, it is said to pose no threat to the
existence of a future messianic kingdom in the way that amillennialists
claim.10
is appeal to multiple ful llments is defended by premillennialist
Richard Mayhue, who demonstrates that the biblical phrase “Day of the
Lord” is not a technical term always referring a single event in God’s plan.11
Instead, the Old Testament prophets used this designation to speak of both
near historical and future eschatological events.12 is relationship between
near and far can be seen, for example, in the prophets Obadiah (near in 1–
14; far in 15–21), Joel (near in 1:15; 2:1, 11; far in 2:31; 3:14), Isaiah (near in
13:6; far in 13:9), and Zephaniah (near in 1:7; far in 1:14).13
According to Mayhue, there are two periods of the Day of the Lord
which have yet to be ful lled on the earth: “(1) the judgment which climaxes
the tribulation period (2 ess 2:2; Rev 16–18), and (2) the consummating
judgment of this earth which ushers in the new earth (2 Pet 3:10–13; Rev
20:7–21:1).”14 In this way 2 Peter 3:10–13 can be harmonized with the
intermediate kingdom of Revelation 20 by seeing Peter’s prophecy ful lled
not at the time of Christ’s return (as in 1 ess 5:2 and 2 ess 2:2),15 but at
the end of the millennium when “the termination of earth’s history is
marked by God’s nal judgment and cleansing of His creation.”16 For this
reason, the amillennial argument from 2 Peter 3:10–13 is said to present no
problem for the intermediate kingdom of premillennialism.
e primary strength of these rst two views is their ability to account
for an intermediate kingdom between the Second Coming and the eternal
state by seeing 2 Peter 3:10–13 ful lled at the end of the millennium. If
Revelation 20 does indeed teach that Jesus will reign for a thousand years
aer He returns to earth, then 2 Peter 3:10–13 must be harmonized with this
reality, and both of these views constitute possible ways this can be done.
But to be fair, both views also suffer from a common weakness, for even if
the concept of the Day of the Lord is broad enough to encompass a
ful llment of this passage aer the millennial kingdom, Peter’s argument in
this passage focuses on what occurs at the Second Coming, not what
happens a thousand years later.
is emphasis on the Second Coming is very clear throughout the
immediate context. e apostle begins this section in 2 Peter 3 by
introducing the disturbance caused by false teachers who scoff at the idea of
the Second Coming and the divine judgment associated with it: “Where is
the promise of His coming?” these mockers say, “for ever since the fathers
fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation” (vv. 3–
4). He continues by rebuking them for their foolishness in denying that God
will judge and destroy the present world, since He Himself created it and has
brought destruction upon it once already (vv. 5–7).17 Peter then reminds his
beloved readers that God’s timetable in delaying the return of Jesus cannot
be interpreted by their human reckoning of time, “for with the Lord one day
is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day” (v. 8). In fact,
Peter says, in contrast to being slow about the promise of the Second
Coming, God the Father delays the return of His Son because of His patient
desire for all to come to repentance (v. 9). In contrast to this idea that God is
slow to ful ll His promise to send Jesus, Peter insists that the Day of the
Lord will indeed come—and will come unexpectedly—bringing destruction
to the heavens and the earth (v. 10).18 In light of this future judgment, Peter
exhorts his readers to live holy and godly lives (v. 11), eagerly awaiting (and
even hastening) the coming of Christ and the ful llment of these promises
(vv. 12–13).19
e clear and consistent emphasis in 2 Peter 3:3–13, then, is on the
Second Coming of Christ: Peter introduces “the promise of His coming” as
the main topic (v. 4); he assures his readers that God is not slow to keep this
promise (v. 9); he assures them that this day will indeed come, unexpectedly
bringing destruction to heaven and earth (v. 10); and he exhorts them to live
holy lives as they long for that day and hasten its arrival through their
obedience (vv. 11–14). With such a pervasive focus on the Second Coming,
a description of the divine judgment at the end of the millennium appears to
be completely foreign to the immediate context.20 For this reason, it is
difficult to understand how the destruction described in this passage could
occur a thousand years aer the return of Christ.
At the same time, because the return of Christ is the monumental event
that will set all of these eschatological events in motion, perhaps it could be
argued that it is perfectly natural for Peter to move quickly from the Second
Coming to the divine judgment that will take place at the end of the
millennium, without explicitly noting the gap of time that will separate the
two. Regardless, even though the emphasis on the Second Coming in 2 Peter
3 may not constitute an absolutely de nitive objection, it remains the most
signi cant challenge to the rst two views on this passage.
In contrast, a third premillennial response is that 2 Peter 3:10 will take
place at the Second Coming of Christ, at the beginning of the millennial
kingdom rather than the end of it.21 Consequently, the new heavens and
new earth ushered in by the divine judgment in 2 Peter 3:13 is understood
not as the eternal state, but as the messianic kingdom which precedes the
eternal state. According to this view, the destruction described in this
passage refers not to the complete annihilation of the heavens and the earth
so that they no longer exist, but rather to the judgment and transformation
of creation so that heaven and earth are completely renewed.22 For this
reason, it is said, 2 Peter 3:10–13 does not teach that the Second Coming
initiates the eternal state, and therefore this passage presents no real
difficulty for the intermediate kingdom of premillennialism.
Several arguments have been presented for this view that 2 Peter 3:10
takes place at the Second Coming.23 First, the Old Testament teaches that a
judgment of re, very similar to the one described in 2 Peter 3, will
immediately precede the establishment of the messianic kingdom (Joel
2:30–31; Mal 3:1–3; 4:1; Isa 66:22; cf. Isa 66:15–16).24 Second, the Old
Testament teaches that disturbances in the material heavens, identical to
those described in 2 Peter 3, will occur immediately before the
establishment of the messianic kingdom (Isa 34:4; Hag 2:6–7; Joel 3:16; Isa
13:13; 51:6).25 ird, the New Testament also places a judgment of re at the
inception of the coming messianic kingdom (2 ess 1:7–8; Rev 16:8–9).26
Fourth, because the Bible teaches that the coming kingdom will occupy a
regenerated earth from its very beginning (Isa 65:17–25; 66:22–24), the
purifying effects of the prophetic dissolution in 2 Peter 3:10–13 must take
place at the beginning of the millennium, not at the end.27 Fih, the coming
kingdom promised in Scripture is characterized by a perpetual continuity
(Luke 1:32–33; Dan 2:44; 7:14, 18), precluding a massive destruction at the
end of the millennium which would interrupt this continuity.28 Sixth, the
immediate context of 2 Peter 3:10 indicates that Peter is describing
something that will occur at the Second Coming, not a thousand years
later.29 In addition to the previously discussed focus on the Second Coming
throughout 2 Peter 3:3–13, this is also supported by (a) Peter’s description
that this day “will come like a thief ” (v. 10)—a metaphor used elsewhere to
express the unexpectedness of Christ’s return (Matt 24:43; Luke 12:39; 1
ess 5:2, 4; Rev 16:15)30—and (b) Peter’s focus on the need for his readers
to expectantly “look for” this day to arrive (vv. 12–14; cf. 1 ess 1:10; 2 Tim
4:8; Titus 2:13).31 Seventh, this view is supported by the exhortations in 2
Peter 3:11–14, which Peter issued to his readers “on the basis of this
predicted dissolution as if it were something they should expect to see if
they should live to the end of the present age, rather than as if it were
something at least a millennium away.”32
Despite the strength of these arguments, this third view is also not
without weaknesses. e primary difficulty is this view’s interpretation of
the new heavens and new earth as a reference to the millennial kingdom
rather than the eternal state. In Revelation 21:1, at the end of the millennial
kingdom, the apostle John writes: “en I saw a new heaven and a new earth
[oujrano;n kaino;n kai; gh:n kainhvn]; for the rst heaven and the rst earth
passed away, and there is no longer any sea.” In light of the clear contrast
John makes between (a) the “ rst” heaven and earth of the present age and
millennial kingdom and (b) the “new” heaven and earth of the eternal state
in Revelation 21:1, it difficult to understand how 2 Peter 3:13 could apply the
designation “new heavens and a new earth” (kainou;V … oujranou;V kai; gh:n
kainh;n) to the millennial kingdom.
In response, however, it is possible to see the intermediate kingdom of
premillennialism as the initial phase—a kind of “ rst fruits”33—of the new
heavens and new earth.34 is view is supported by Isaiah 65:17–25, which
begins with the creation of the new heavens and new earth in verse 17, and
then continues with a prophetic con ation of the two stages of the coming
kingdom (the millennial kingdom and the eternal state) in verses 18–25. If
Isaiah views both stages of the eschatological kingdom as part of the new
heavens and new earth, this makes it more likely for Peter to use the same
terminology for the millennial kingdom (2 Pet 3:13), even though John
reserves it for the eternal state (Rev 21:1):

New Heavens and New Earth

Millennium Eternal State Conflation
Isaiah 65:17–25 X
2 Peter 3:10–13 X
Revelation 21:1– X
 4

is is consistent with the fact that, in the progress of divine revelation,
Peter was appealing to the terminology as used by the prophet Isaiah, not by
the apostle John, who had not yet written the book of Revelation. is view
also gains support from the argument of Mayhue above that the biblical
phrase “Day of the Lord” is not a technical term always referring to a single
event in God’s plan, but rather can be ful lled at different times in reference
to different eschatological events in redemptive history.35
ese three premillennial responses possess various strengths and
weaknesses, but each of them provides a plausible explanation of how the
judgment in 2 Peter 3:10–13 can be harmonized with the millennial
kingdom of premillennialism. In light of the clarity of John’s description of
an intermediate kingdom in Revelation 20, then, 2 Peter 3:10–13 fails to
prove that the Second Coming will immediately usher in the eternal state,
without an earthly reign of Christ separating the two.

THE ARGUMENT FROM ROMANS 8:18–23

is connection between the renewal of the cosmos and the Second Coming
of Christ can also be seen in Romans 8:18–23, where Paul writes:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy
to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the
anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the
sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly,
but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself
also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of
the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole
creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until
now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the rst fruits
of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting
eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in
hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who
 hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not
see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it (Rom 8:18–23).

According to amillennialists, because Romans 8:18–23 teaches that

creation will be delivered from the curse when God’s children are
resurrected and glori ed—and because this resurrection and glori cation
will occur at the Second Coming—the divine renewal of the created order
must also occur at the return of Christ, not a thousand years later.36 For this
reason, Romans 8:18–23 is said to allow no room for an intermediate
kingdom between the Second Coming and the nal restoration of the
universe.37 e challenge for the premillennialist is to explain how Romans
8 allows for a millennial reign of Christ between the present age and the
eternal state.

e Premillennial Response
In Romans 8:18–23, Paul describes the symmetrical relationship between
the redemption of believers and the redemption of the non-human, physical
creation, for just as believers will one day be transformed and glori ed, so
“the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the
freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Rom 8:21).38 Despite the
apparent challenge that Romans 8 presents for the existence of an
intermediate kingdom, there are three possible ways to harmonize this
passage with a millennial reign of Christ between the Second Coming and
the eternal state.
First, some premillennialists believe that the glori cation of creation in
Romans 8 takes place aer the millennium, just prior to the eternal state.39
According to this view, the glori cation of believers at the Second Coming
and the glori cation of creation aer the millennial kingdom are con ated
into a single description in Romans 8 even though an unstated gap of a
thousand years will separate the two. e primary strength of this view is
that, in spite of the parallelism between the glori cation of believers and the
glori cation of creation, Romans 8:18–23 does not explicitly state that the
two will occur at the same time. For this reason, suggesting a gap of time is a
plausible way to harmonize Romans 8 with the clear teaching of an
intermediate kingdom in Revelation 20. e primary weakness is that even
though the temporal relationship between the two glori cations is not stated
explicitly, Romans 8:19 in particular—where Paul says that “the anxious
longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God”—
links them in a way that implies their simultaneous occurrence.
In the end, however, Romans 8:19 does not conclusively preclude the
possibility of an interval of time separating the two glori cations. e
reason that the created order longs for the revelation of God’s children in
verse 19 is because that same renewal will be the fate of the physical creation
as well.40 It could therefore be argued that even though creation longs to see
the glori cation of believers because that will be its own eventual destiny,
this does not prove that the two glori cations will happen simultaneously. In
Paul’s use of personi cation,41 it may be that creation longs to see this
transformation because of how the glori cation of God’s people foreshadows
its own transformation, even though that subsequent renewal will not occur
until aer the millennium.42 So this rst view remains a possible way to
harmonize Romans 8 with the intermediate kingdom of Revelation 20.
Second, other premillennialists believe that the glori cation of creation
in Romans 8 will occur at the Second Coming and therefore at the same
time that the saints are resurrected and glori ed.43 is view agrees with
amillennialism regarding the timing of creation’s redemption in Romans 8,
but it asserts that this glori cation will usher in the millennial kingdom,
which will take place on a divinely renewed earth prior to the eternal state
(Rom 8:18–23). As premillennialist Charles Feinberg explains:

Nature will be rejuvenated, and harmony will once more reign (Isa.
35:1; Rom. 8:19–22). e curse will be removed from the ground,
and the desert and wilderness will be abundantly fruitful and
productive (Zech. 14:11). Animal creation also will experience a
change in which animals of rapacious appetites will become meek
and tame. e age of man will be lengthened, for a man of one
hundred years will be esteemed but a child (Isa. 65:20).44

Among the strengths of this view, (a) it affirms the simplest and most
straightforward reading of Romans 8 by seeing the glori cation of creation
at the same time as the Second Coming and the glori cation of believers; (b)
it is consistent with the Bible’s teaching regarding the renewal of the earth
during the millennial kingdom;45 and (c) it is able to harmonize all the
relevant biblical data—including Old Testament prophecy, Romans 8, and
the intermediate kingdom of Revelation 20—in a way that incorporates the
unique contribution of each passage.
An obvious objection to this view comes from amillennialist Robert
Strimple, who says the existence of sin in the millennial kingdom would
once again subject creation to the curse, since sin brings death and
destruction not only to mankind but also to the realm that mankind rules.46
In response to this objection, even though God cursed creation because of
Adam’s transgression (Gen 3:14–19; Rom 8:20), sin in the millennial
kingdom will not bring a new curse on earth because God will be renewing
and restoring creation as Christ reigns until He has put all His enemies
under His feet (1 Cor 15:25). Part of this process will involve severely
disciplining those who refuse to worship the Lord, but even this divine
judgment will be temporary and limited in scope (Zech 14:17–19), and
therefore it will not adversely affect the overall renewal of the broader
created order.
At the same time, it does seem, as Strimple insists, that the deliverance of
creation must be just as nal, total, absolute, and everlasting as it is for the
children of God.47 is is not stated explicitly in Romans 8, but the
parallelism between the glori cation of believers and the glori cation of
creation appears to imply an absoluteness to the redemption of the created
order which is not entirely realized in the millennium. For this reason, it
may be preferable to see Romans 8 as only partially ful lled in the
millennium. is leads to the nal way to harmonize Paul’s prophecy with
the existence of an intermediate kingdom.
irdly, other premillennialists believe that an initial ful llment of
Romans 8 will take place at the Second Coming, but that its ultimate
ful llment will not occur until the end of the millennial kingdom.48
According to this view, because it does not t His immediate purposes in
Romans 8, Paul does not distinguish between these two stages in the
redemption of creation, even though he is aware of them and even though
they are taught elsewhere in Scripture. Instead, he con ates them into a
single description of the created order being set free from futility and its
slavery to corruption (Rom 8:19–21). In this way, the glori cation of non-
human creation begins at the Second Coming, but this two-stage process of
renewal is not complete until the transition to the eternal state (Rev 21:1–4).
To understand this third view, it is helpful to consider the initial
transformation of creation that will take place in the millennium. e Bible
teaches that even though the millennial kingdom will be established on this
present earth, the earth will be supernaturally renewed.49 e curse of the
ground will be lied (Isa 30:23–25; 32:13–15; 35:1–2, 7; 41:18); the animal
world will be tamed (Isa 11:6–8; 65:25); sickness and death will be greatly
reduced (Isa 29:18; 33:24; 35:5–6; Ezek 34:16), leading to great longevity of
life (Isa 65:20, 22); and even though sin and judgment will not yet be entirely
eliminated (Ps 2:9; Zech 14:16–19; Ezek 44:25, 27; Rev 19:5; 20:7–10), it will
be a time of unprecedented prosperity for humanity (Jer 31:12; Ezek 34:25–
29; Amos 9:13–14).50 e land of Palestine, in particular, will be fertile and
productive (Ezek 36:6–9; Amos 9:13–15; Zech 8:11–12), blessed by an
abundance of rainfall and no longer subject to famine (Ezek 34:26–29;
36:29–30; Joel 2:21–27), being compared to the Garden of Eden by everyone
who passes by (Ezek 36:35).51
e reversal of the curse re ected in these millennial descriptions
appears to ful ll the promise in Romans 8 that creation, which was
“subjected to futility” when cursed at the fall of Adam (Rom 8:20; Gen 3:14,
17–19), “will be set free from its slavery to corruption” (Rom 8:21). And yet
because this initial phase of the coming kingdom falls short of the nal state
of absolute perfection (Rev 21:1–4; 22:1–5),52 it is more precise to say that
the prophecy of creation’s redemption in Romans 8 will be ful lled in two
stages, with an initial/partial ful llment in the millennial kingdom and an
ultimate/complete ful llment in the eternal state. As premillennialist Craig
Blaising writes, “ere is nothing in Romans 8 that prevents the glori cation
of creation from taking place in stages (cf. Isa. 25 and 65),”53 and therefore
this appears to be the best way to harmonize all that Scripture teaches about
the future redemption of the created order.
1 Cornelis P. Venema, e Promise of the Future (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2000),
247–48.
2 According to Anthony Hoekema, “Peter states with unmistakable clarity that the
Second Coming will be followed at once by the dissolution of the old earth and the
creation of the new earth (2 Peter 3:10–13)” (e Bible and the Future [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1979], 185–86).
3 Robert B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond,
ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1999), 107. Also see
Venema, e Promise of the Future, 247–48; Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for
Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, expanded ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 2013), 99, 166–67; Samuel E. Waldron, e End Times Made Simple: How Could
Everyone Be So Wrong About Biblical Prophecy? (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2003),
63; Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: e Amillennial Alternative (Ross-shire, Scotland:
Mentor, 2013), 154, 159–60, 551; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 185–86.
4 Storms, Kingdom Come, 159. In a similar way, Sam Waldron writes, “e natural
signi cance of 2 Peter 3:10 is, however, that when Christ comes the world is
immediately (not 1000 years later) destroyed” (e End Times Made Simple, 63).
5 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 99. As Storms argues, “If the new heavens and
new earth come at the time of Christ’s second advent, there can be no earthly
millennial reign intervening between the two” (Kingdom Come, 159–60).
6 Robert L. Saucy, e Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: e Interface Between
Dispensational and Non-Dispensational eology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 1993), 288. According to Richard Mayhue (“e Bible’s Watchword: Day of
the Lord,” MSJ 22, no. 1 [Spring 2011]: 74) and Craig Blaising (“e Day of the Lord:
eme and Pattern in Biblical eology,” BibSac 169, no. 673 [Jan 2012]: 8), this is the
most popular view among dispensationalists, e.g., J. Dwight Pentecost, ings to Come:
A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1978), 174, 230–
32; Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic eology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948),
7:110; J. T. Cooper, “e Judgment, or Judgments,” in Premillennial Essays, ed.
Nathaniel West (Minneapolis: Bryant Baptist Publications, 1981), 247; R. Larry
Overstreet, “A Study of 2 Peter 3:10–13,” BibSac 137, No. 548 (Oct 1980): 358–59; D.
Edmond Hiebert, Second Peter and Jude: An Expositional Commentary (Greenville, SC:
Unusual Publications, 1989), 158. is also appears to be the view of Blaising, who
writes that the syntax in 2 Pet 3:10 and 12 does not require “that everything happens at
the inception of the Day of the Lord” (Craig A. Blaising, “A Premillennial Response to
Robert B. Strimple,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock
[Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1999],150). But elsewhere Blaising declines to
take a position on the relationship of the millennium to the Day of the Lord (“e Day
of the Lord: eme and Pattern in Biblical eology,” 8).
7 John F. Walvoord, e Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing,
1959), 273. According to Dwight Pentecost, “2 Peter 3:10 gives authority for including
the entire millennial age within this period” (ings to Come, 230).
8 is view is not, however, without difficulties. According to Mayhue, because the Day
of the Lord is chie y a time of judgment, “there is minimal biblical evidence to warrant
extending [it] into the Millennium” (“e Bible’s Watchword,” 75). Blaising
summarizes this objection by asking the question: “How can the day of the Lord be a
day of judgment if it is mostly the millennial reign of Christ?” (“e Day of the Lord:
eme and Pattern in Biblical eology,” 5). Cooper responds to this objection by
insisting that the entire millennial period consists of divine judgment: “It opens with
judgment; it has judgment running through it, and it closes with the judgment of the
Great White rone” (“e Judgment, or Judgments,” 247). According to Lewis Sperry
Chafer, this ongoing millennial judgment is described in 1 Cor 15:25–26, where Paul
characterizes the millennial kingdom as a time of protracted judgment in which Christ
is subduing His enemies throughout the entire period (Chafer, Systematic eology,
4:398). It should also be noted that prophecies like Joel 3 describe God not only
judging the nations (vv. 1–17) but also blessing His people (vv. 18–21) as part of the
Day of the Lord. erefore, even though the dominant feature of the Day of the Lord is
divine judgment, this does not exclude the presence of divine blessing, which may
allow for the inclusion of the millennial kingdom in this time period.
9 According to Craig Blaising: “e description of the coming of the Day of the Lord in
Isaiah 24–25 indicates a two-stage judgment process preceding the nal elimination of
death. is two-stage judgment overlaps the beginning of the future kingdom, thereby
yielding a temporary phase of that kingdom before eternal conditions are fully
realized. e rst stage of this judgment is described in Isaiah 24 as the coming Day of
the Lord. While that judgment is catastrophic, it results in an ‘imprisonment’ of some
who will subsequently be ‘punished’ aer ‘many days’ (Isa 24:21–22). Aer this latter
punishment death will be abolished (Isa 25:6–8). e imprisonment for many days
must be included in the ‘reign’ of verse 23, under whose authority the imprisonment
will take place. e latter punishment, then, separates two phases of the coming rule.
Since the removal of death is relegated to the latter phase, death is still present during
the earlier phase, the time of the imprisonment” (Craig A. Blaising, “e Kingdom that
Comes with Jesus: Premillennialism and the Harmony of Scripture,” in e Return of
Christ: A Premillennial Perspective, eds. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke [Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 2011], 145–46).
10 Mayhue, “e Bible’s Watchword,” 74.
11 Richard Mayhue, “e Prophet’s Watchword: Day of the Lord,” GTJ 6, no. 2 (Fall 1985):
245.
12 Ibid., 231–46; Mayhue, “e Bible’s Watchword,” 66–69.
13 Mayhue, “e Bible’s Watchword,” 66.
14 Mayhue, “e Prophet’s Watchword,” 246. According to Mayhue, 2 Peter 3 reveals an
ultimate expression of the Day of the Lord “which even the Old Testament prophets
did not envision or did not separate from that which they viewed as nal” (“e Bible’s
Watchword,” 74). According to Mayhue, Day of the Lord prophecies will be ful lled
only at the end of the tribulation period, not throughout its duration, and only at the
end of the millennium, not throughout its duration (“e Prophet’s Watchword,” 246).
15 e phrase “the time of Christ’s return” is intentionally vague to allow for various
views on the exact starting point of the Day of the Lord. As Mayhue observes, there are
at least four different views among dispensationalists regarding when the Day of the
Lord begins: with the rapture, soon aer the rapture, at the mid-point of Daniel’s
seventieth week, and at the end of Daniel’s seventieth week, i.e., the Second Coming of
Christ (“e Bible’s Watchword,” 83–84).
16 Mayhue, “e Bible’s Watchword,” 74.
17 Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter, and Jude, e NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing, 1996), 185.
18 e adversative use of the conjunction dev at the beginning of 2 Pet 3:10 marks a mild
contrast between the idea that God is slow to ful ll His promise in verse 9 and the
certainty that the Day of the Lord will come in verse 10. Peter stresses this certainty by
placing the verb h{xei (“will come”) in the emphatic position at the beginning of verse
10.
19 R. Larry Overstreet argues that this passage must not describe the Second Coming
“since Peter mentions only ‘the day of the Lord’ which is an extended period of time”
(“A Study of 2 Peter 3:10–13,” 360), but this argument is not compelling in light of all
the contextual evidence to the contrary.
20 If one denies that the divine judgment of 2 Pet 3:10–13 occurs at the Second Coming,
then one must also conclude that Peter raised the issue of whether or not Jesus would
return (vv. 3–4) only to focus instead on the divine judgment one thousand years aer
His return. As Robert Strimple argues, if the coming of Christ in verse 4 is not the
same event as the “day of the Lord” in verse 10, then “Peter’s affirmation in verse 10
would not be relevant as an answer to the mocking question of verse 4”
(“Amillennialism,” 107). According to Blaising, the “coming” (parousiva) in verse 4 is
used interchangeably with the Day of the Lord in verse 10 (Craig A. Blaising, “e Day
of the Lord and the Seventieth Week of Daniel,” BibSac 169, no. 674 [April 2012]: 141).
21 George N. H. Peters, e eocratic Kingdom, vol. 2 (1884; repr., Grand Rapids, Kregel
Publications, 1972), 506–9; Robert D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1954), 177–90.
22 For a strong defense of the view that the judgment in 2 Pet 3:10–13 refers to
transformation and renewal rather than complete annihilation, see Craig A. Blaising,
“e Day of the Lord Will Come: An Exposition of 2 Peter 3:1–18,” BibSac 169, no. 676
(Oct 2012): 394–401; Gale Z. Heide, “What’s New About the New Heaven and the New
Earth? A eology of Creation from Revelation 21 and 2 Peter 3,” JETS 40, no. 1
(March 1997): 46–55; Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 183–90. Also see Moo, 2
Peter and Jude, 185–202, who provides a very helpful discussion of this passage,
highlighting arguments on both sides of the annihilation/transformation debate,
despite his failure to take a rm position. It should be noted that some
premillennialists interpret the destruction in 2 Peter 3 as a transformation and renewal
(rather than annihilation) and yet still believe that this passage will be ful lled at the
transition from the millennial kingdom to the eternal state (e.g., Alva J. McClain, e
 Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God [Winona Lake, IN:
BMH Books, 1959], 510).
23 Peters, e eocratic Kingdom, 506–9; Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 177–90. For
a premillennial response to this view and many of these arguments, see Overstreet, “A
Study of 2 Peter 3:10–13,” 359–61.
24 Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 179; Peters, e eocratic Kingdom, 507.
According to Culver, Peter’s declaration that his readers were already looking “for these
things” (2 Pet 3:14) indicates that they had been expecting a consuming re to precede
the coming kingdom of Messiah since the days of the Old Testament prophets. is,
Culver believes, strengthens the connection between these Old Testament prophecies
and 2 Pet 3:10–13. Premillennialist R. Larry Overstreet disputes this claim that the new
heavens and new earth of Isa 66:22 refers to the millennial kingdom, asserting instead
that it refers to the eternal state (“A Study of 2 Peter 3:10–13,” 359).
25 Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 179–80. According to Culver, the Old Testament
“places the coming cosmic disturbances at the beginning of the coming kingdom, not
at some point one thousand years along the course of it.”
26 Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 180; Peters, e eocratic Kingdom, 507.
According to Culver, no one can read 2 ess 1:7–8 and Rev 16:8–9 objectively “and
not feel that the New Testament predicts a judgment of re at the commencement of
the coming kingdom” (Daniel and the Latter Days, 180–81). Overstreet disputes the
claim of Culver that 2 Pet 3:10–13, 2 ess 1:7–8, and Rev 16:8–9 all refer to the same
event (“A Study of 2 Peter 3:10–13,” 361).
27 Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 181. According to Overstreet, this argument is
negated by the fact that Isa 65:17–25 and 66:22–24 contain con ated descriptions of
both the millennial kingdom and the eternal state (“A Study of 2 Peter 3:10–13,” 361).
28 Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 182. According to Culver, “Even though a change
in the mediation of rulership of that kingdom is predicted (I Cor. 15:23–28), an
abolition of the earthly realm is nowhere promised—unless II Peter 3:10 be the
exception.” ose who make this argument must be prepared to explain what it means
that heaven and earth “ ed away” (Rev 20:11) and “passed away” (Rev 21:1) at the end
of the millennial kingdom.
29 Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 181.
30 Overstreet counters this argument by asserting that more than one aspect of the
coming as a thief is possible during this extended period of time known as the Day of
the Lord: “e judgments of God which fall in the tribulation period will come
unexpectedly. Christ will come back suddenly at the second advent in judgment.
Likewise, at the conclusion of the millennium, judgment falls unexpectedly on the
earth-dwellers who are unsaved” (“A Study of 2 Peter 3:10–13,” 359). Overstreet is
correct in noting that the divine judgments during the tribulation and at the Second
Coming will arrive unexpectedly, but because the judgment at the end of the
millennium will come in response to an attack initiated by Satan and the unbelieving
nations (Rev 20:7–9), it is difficult to see how its arrival could be described as thief-
like.
31 Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 181. is focus can be seen in Peter’s three uses of
the verb prosdokavw (“to look for”) in 2 Pet 3:12–14. According to Culver, it is clear
that Peter did not question the possibility that his original readers might live to see the
inauguration of the destruction described in 2 Peter 3: “How inconsistent such
statements are with the view that verse 10 describes events known to be at least a
thousand years away needs only to be noted to be appreciated” (182).
32 Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 182–83. According to Culver, the same hope and
the same attendant moral lessons are also set forth in Matt 24:42–51, Mark 13:32–37,
and Luke 21:25–36 (183).
33 is terminology is adapted from Ralph Alexander, who describes the millennium as a
“ rst fruits” of the eternal state (Ralph H. Alexander, “Ezekiel,” in EBC, ed. Frank E.
Gaebelein [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1981], 6:945). According to
Alexander, “e Millennium will be like a preview of the eternal messianic kingdom
that will be revealed fully in the eternal state.”
34 According to Culver, “e new heavens and new earth begin at the inauguration of the
kingdom,” which is the millennium (Daniel and the Latter Days, 189).
35 Mayhue, “e Prophet’s Watchword,” 231–46; Mayhue, “e Bible’s Watchword,” 66–
69.
36 Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 106; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 94, 378; Hoekema,
e Bible and the Future, 282; Storms, Kingdom Come, 153, 551.
37 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 166; Storms, Kingdom Come, 153–54;
Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 106; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 247–48. For this
reason, Storms argues that “amillennialism alone is consistent with the New Testament
teaching that the natural creation will be delivered from the curse and experience its
‘redemption,’ in conjunction with the ‘redemption’ of our bodies, at the time of the
second coming of Christ (Rom. 8:18–23)” (Kingdom Come, 551).
38 roughout Romans 8, the word “creation” (ktivsiV) refers to the non-human, physical
creation which was cursed at the fall of Adam (Gen 3:14, 17–19) (C.E.B. Cran eld, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 1, ICC
[Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983], 411–12; Douglas J. Moo, e Epistle to the Romans,
NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1996], 513–14; omas R. Schreiner,
Romans, BECNT [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998], 435). Cran eld refers to it as
“the sum-total of subhuman nature both animate and inanimate” (Critical and
Exegetical Commentary, 411–12).
39 George Eldon Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1952), 84; George Eldon Ladd, e Gospel of the Kingdom:
Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1959),
76–77; Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 121, 265–66, 269. According to George Eldon Ladd,
“God’s reign will be eventually manifested in the entire creation in the Age to Come.
e nal form of the kingdom must include the redemption of creation itself which is
now under the curse and bondage of sin (Rom. 8:20–22)” (Crucial Questions, 84).
Elsewhere Ladd refers to this as “the day when God’s redemptive purpose will be
 completed and the creation will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the
glorious liberty of the sons of God” (e Gospel of the Kingdom, 76–77).
40 Schreiner, Romans, 434.
41 Paul’s use of personi cation to communicate this truth should caution the reader
against pressing for too much precision as he interprets the temporal relationship
between the two glori cations.
42 In the same way, when Paul writes that “the creation itself also will be set free from its
slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Rom 8:21),
it could be that the creation will be delivered into this freedom a thousand years aer
the children of God.
43 Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 189; R. Stanton Norman, “e Doctrine of
Eschatology: emes, Summary, and Signi cance,” in e Return of Christ: A
Premillennial Perspective, eds. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 2011), 120; Pentecost, ings to Come, 538; Charles L. Feinberg,
Millennialism: e Two Major Views, 3rd ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 186;
Peters, e eocratic Kingdom, 479–93. Elsewhere, however, Culver asserts that
Romans 8 will be ful lled “at the consummation” (Robert D. Culver, Systematic
eology: Biblical and Historical [Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2005],
335). Other premillennialists are equally unclear regarding when they believe the
redemption of creation in Romans 8 will occur. For example, Alva J. McClain cites
Rom 8:17–23 in support of his assertion that the church “must be perfected in order to
reign with Christ over the nations in the coming Kingdom” (e Greatness of the
Kingdom, 329–30) and he therefore appears to view this prophecy as ful lled at the
Second Coming. But he says very little else about the passage—and nothing speci cally
on the timing of the glori cation of creation—so it is difficult to be certain. Paul
Benware cites Rom 8:19–23 as evidence that creation will continue to experience
futility and corruption “until God nishes saving mankind” (Paul N. Benware,
Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach [Chicago: Moody
Publishers, 2006], 283), but he is not clear about when exactly he believes this will take
place.
44 Feinberg, Millennialism, 186.
45 e speci cs of this renewal will be discussed below under the third view.
46 Robert B. Strimple, “An Amillennial Response to Craig A. Blaising,” in ree Views on
the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing), 269.
47 Ibid.
48 Blaising, “A Premillennial Response,” 150.
49 Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy, 283.
50 Nathan Busenitz, “e Kingdom of God and the Eternal State,” MSJ 23, no. 2 (Fall
2012): 267; also see John MacArthur, “Does the New Testament Reject Futuristic
Premillennialism?,” in Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Futuristic Premillennial Primer, eds.
John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2012), 174;
 McClain, e Greatness of the Kingdom, 237–41; Benware, Understanding End Times
Prophecy, 283–84; Walvoord, e Millennial Kingdom, 318.
51 As Paul Benware writes, “Much of the present earth is unproductive because it is
desert, but the millennial kingdom will be characterized by an abundance of water, and
the desolate, dry areas of the earth will blossom as the rose (Isa. 35:1–7)”
(Understanding End Times Prophecy, 283).
52 According to John Walvoord, the existence of death in the millennial kingdom
indicates that the curse on the earth “is only partly lied” during the earthly reign of
Christ and “will remain in some measure” until the arrival of the new heaven and the
new earth (e Millennial Kingdom, 318).
53 Blaising, “A Premillennial Response,” 150.
 Chapter 10

e Final Victory over Sin

and Death

INTRODUCTION

For some amillennialists, the singlemost compelling argument against

premillennialism is Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 about God’s nal
victory over sin and death. According to this argument, because God will
utterly destroy sin and death when Jesus returns, the intermediate kingdom
of premillennialism—in which sin and death continue to exist—is a
theological impossibility. To demonstrate that this nal destruction of sin
and death will occur at the Second Coming, amillennialists point to two
related passages: 1 Corinthians 15:20–28 and 1 Corinthians 15:50–57.

THE ARGUMENT FROM 1 CORINTHIANS 15:20–28

In 1 Corinthians 15:20–28, the apostle Paul sets forth a series of events
initiated by the resurrection of Christ:

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the rst fruits of
those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also
came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in
Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the
rst fruits, aer that those who are Christ’s at His coming, and then
 comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and
Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
e last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all
things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are
put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things
in subjection to Him. And when all things are subjected to Him,
then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who
subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all (1 Cor 15:20–
28).

e Amillennial Argument
According to amillennialists, this passage indicates not only that believers
will be resurrected when Jesus returns (v. 23), but also that His coming will
usher in “the end” (vv. 23–24), which will be marked by the destruction of
death, the nal enemy of God (v. 26).1 At the Second Coming of Christ,
then, the righteous will be raised and death itself will be abolished once and
for all (cf. Rev 20:14; 21:4). For this reason, amillennialists believe that
“when Christ comes at the end of the age, this will mark the closure of
redemptive history and commence … the nal state.”2
e problem this presents for premillennialism is obvious: If death is
destroyed at the Second Coming of Christ, how can the Second Coming
usher in an intermediate kingdom in which people continue to die? How
can death be abolished when Jesus returns if death continues to prevail for a
thousand years aer His return?3 Because of this dilemma, amillennialists
believe that 1 Corinthians 15:20–28 precludes the possibility of
premillennialism.4
e millennial debate in this passage centers on the inde nite phrase
ei\ta to; tevloV (“then comes the end”)5 at the beginning of verse 24, which
introduces the third in a sequence of events presented in 1 Corinthians
15:23–24:

But each in his own order:

[the resurrection of] Christ the rst fruits,
 aer that [e[peita]
[the resurrection of] those who are Christ’s at His coming,
and then [ei\ta]
the end comes,
when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father,
when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.

e key question is whether the temporal adverb ei\ta (“then”) at the

beginning of verse 24 allows time for an earthly reign of Messiah between
“His coming” (th/: parousiva/ aujtou:) and “the end” (to; tevloV), when the
kingdom is handed over to the Father. According to amillennialists, the
adverb ei\ta indicates that “the end” comes immediately at the time of “His
coming,” leaving no time for an intermediate kingdom before the eternal
state.6 But according to premillennialists, the adverb ei\ta allows for a
lengthy interval of time between the Second Coming and the
consummation, the thousand years of Revelation 20.
Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger considers this view of an extended
interval to be a departure from the premillennialist’s “professed literal
method of interpretation,”7 and Cornelis Venema says it requires “an
unnatural reading of this passage.”8 According to Venema, every other New
Testament use of the temporal adverb ei\ta—as well as its synonym e[peita,
which is used in conjunction with ei\ta in 1 Corinthians 15:23–24—
expresses “events in the closest temporal connection, without any protracted
period of time intervening (Luke 8:12, Mark 4:17, John 20:27).”9
Furthermore, says Venema, these same two adverbs (ei\ta and e[peita) are
used interchangeably in the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 15, “and
there, too, they express a simple sequence of events (1 Cor. 15:5–7).”10
erefore, Venema claims, if the ordinary usage of this adverb is considered,
“these words ought to be read as expressing a simple sequence of events—
when Christ comes, the dead in Christ will be raised and the end state will
ensue.”11

e Premillennial Response
In response, Venema’s appeal to the “ordinary usage” of ei\ta in the New
Testament is puzzling, and his claim that it always indicates the next in a
sequence of events without an interval of time is simply untrue. Outside 1
Corinthians 15:24, the adverb ei\ta is used 14 times in the New Testament,
13 of which introduce something that occurs next in a sequence of events.12
Of these 13 temporal uses of ei\ta, ve introduce an event that happens
immediately aer the previous event (Mark 8:25; Luke 8:12; John 13:5;
19:27; 20:27); six introduce an event that occurs aer a interval of time
between the two events (Mark 4:17; 4:28 [2x]; 1 Cor 15:5, 7; 1 Tim 2:13); and
once there may or may not be an intervening gap of time in view (1 Tim
3:10). In contrast to Venema’s claim, then, ei\ta is oen used to denote
events separated by an interval of time—in fact, it is Paul’s most common
use of the temporal adverb.13
Similarly, its synonym e[peita is also used to describe a sequence of
events either with or without a chronological interval. Of the 13 times this
adverb is used temporally to introduce the next in a sequence of events,14
seven uses of e[peita introduce an event that happens immediately aer the
previous event (Mark 7:5; Luke 16:7; John 11:7; Gal 1:21; 1 ess 4:17; Heb
7:27; James 4:14), and six introduce an event that occurs aer an interval of
time between the two events (1 Cor 15:6, 7, 23, 46; Gal 1:18; 2:1). erefore,
Venema’s claim that e[peita always indicates a sequence of events without a
chronological interval is not true, and his appeal to the ordinary usage of
these two adverbs fails to support his argument.
Not only does Paul most oen use these temporal adverbs to join two
events with an intervening gap of time,15 but this pattern is well established
earlier in the very same chapter. In 1 Corinthians 15:5–7, the apostle lists a
series of post-resurrection of appearances of Christ, writing:

He appeared to Cephas, then [ei\ta] to the twelve. Aer that [e[peita]

He appeared to more than ve hundred brethren at one time, most
of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then
[e[peita] He appeared to James, then [ei\ta] to all the apostles (1 Cor
15:5–7).
In each of these uses of the temporal adverbs, Paul envisions an interval of
time between the two events. e amount of time between each appearance
of Christ varies, but none of them introduces the next appearance as
something that happens immediately aer the previous one.
Furthermore, when Paul sets forth the sequence of three events in 1
Corinthians 15:23–24, his use of e[peita clearly encompasses a lengthy
interval of time between the rst two events:

But each in his own order: Christ the rst fruits, aer that [e[peita]
those who are Christ’s at His coming, and then [ei\ta] comes the end,
when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He
has abolished all rule and all authority and power (1 Cor 15:23–24).

Because Paul’s use of e[peita in verse 23 includes a gap of time between the
resurrection of Christ and the Second Coming—a gap that is currently
almost 2,000 years in length—it is at least possible that Paul envisions of gap
of 1,000 years between the Second Coming and “the end.”16 Contrary to
Riddlebarger’s claim,17 then, seeing a gap between the Second Coming and
the end (vv. 23b–24a) is no more of a departure from a literal approach to
interpretation than seeing a gap between the resurrection of Christ and the
Second Coming (vv. 23a–23b), provided such a gap is warranted by the
immediate context and/or other biblical revelation. Premillennialists believe
it is warranted by both.18

e Case for a Temporal Gap

e argument for a temporal gap between verses 23 and 24 begins with an
examination of the two adverbial o{tan clauses in verse 24, which specify the
timing of when “the end” arrives—“then comes the end, when [o{tan] He
hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when [o{tan] He has
abolished all rule and all authority and power” (1 Cor 15:24). As Wallis
argues, the distinction in verb tense between the two clauses—the present
subjunctive paradidw:/ (“hands over”) in verse 24b vs. the aorist subjunctive
katarghvsh/ (“has abolished”) in verse 24b—indicates a sequence of events
in which the abolishment of all rule/authority/power in the second clause
takes place prior to the handing over the of the kingdom in the rst clause.19
is sequence of events is re ected clearly in the translation of the English
Standard Version: “en comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to
God the Father aer destroying every rule and every authority and power”
(1 Cor 15:24).20 is establishes the following sequence of events in verses
23–24:

e Sequence of Events in 1 Corinthians 15:23–24

1. Christ is resurrected as the rst fruits (v. 23a).
2. Christ’s people are resurrected at His Second Coming (v. 23b).
3. Christ abolishes all of His enemies (v. 24c).
4. Christ delivers up the kingdom to the Father (v. 24b).
5. en comes the end (v. 24a).

According to Wallis, this sequence has signi cant implications for the
possibility of a temporal gap between (2) the Second Coming in verse 23
and (5) “the end” in verse 24:

erefore, since there is a sequence clearly marked, the telos cannot

be simultaneous with the Parousia. Because the telos is preceded by
the destruction of enemies, and the destruction of enemies cannot be
put before the Parousia, the telos must stand beyond the Parousia
and judgment.21

In other words, because Christ must abolish His enemies aer His Second
Coming and yet prior to the arrival of “the end,” the Second Coming and
“the end” cannot occur at the same time—there must be at least some gap of
time separating the two.22
As evidence for the extent of this temporal gap, premillennialists point to
verse 25, where Paul explains why Christ must rst defeat His adversaries
before He hands the kingdom over to the Father: “For He must reign until
He has put all His enemies under His feet. e last enemy that will be
abolished is death” (1 Cor 15:25–26). According to premillennialism, this
reign in which Christ conquers the last of His enemies is the millennial
reign of Jesus (Rev 20), extending from His Second Coming until the end of
the thousand years, when He defeats death and delivers the kingdom to the
Father to commence the eternal state. is further explanation in verses 25–
26 results in a slight modi cation (note the italics below) of the previously
listed sequence of events in 1 Corinthians 15:23–26:

e Premillennial View of 1 Corinthians 15:23–26

1. Christ is resurrected as the rst fruits (v. 23a).
2. Christ’s people are resurrected at His Second Coming (v. 23b).
3. Christ reigns on earth and continues the process of subjugating His
enemies (vv. 24c–25).
4. Christ abolishes His nal enemy (v. 24c), which is death (v. 26).
5. Christ delivers up the kingdom to the Father (v. 24b).
6. en comes the end (v. 24a).

In contrast, amillennialism places the reign of Christ in verse 25 during

the present age, resulting in the following sequence of events:

e Amillennial View of 1 Corinthians 15:23–26

1. Christ is resurrected as the rst fruits (v. 23a).
2. Christ reigns throughout the present age (v. 25).
3. Christ returns to earth (v. 23b), resulting in the following:
a. Christ’s people are resurrected at His Second Coming (v.
23b).
b. Christ abolishes His nal enemy (v. 24c), which is death (v.
26).
c. Christ delivers up the kingdom to the Father (v. 24b).
d. en comes the end (v. 24a).

Both millennial views affirm that the reign of Christ will result in the
defeat of His enemies, culminating in the abolishment of death and the
deliverance of the kingdom to the Father. But the critical difference is the
timing of the reign of Christ in verse 25 and, consequently, the timing of the
abolishment of death and the deliverance of the kingdom. Amillennialists
believe that this reign is taking place now in the present age and will
culminate at the Second Coming, whereas premillennialists believe it will
take place in the future, during the intermediate kingdom between the
Second Coming and the eternal state.

e Case for a Future Reign

A closer look at this passage indicates that the reign of Christ in 1
Corinthians 15:25 cannot be a present reality and therefore must refer to a
future kingdom. Since Jesus concludes this reign by handing the kingdom
over to the Father when “the end” arrives (1 Cor 15:24), if Jesus is reigning
now and the arrival of “the end” coincides with His Second Coming (as
amillennialism claims), then the present age is the only age in which Jesus
will reign over the messianic kingdom.23 is is problematic for the
amillennial view because according to the New Testament, not only will the
saints reign with Christ in His messianic kingdom, but this co-reign is
always described as being future rather than present (2 Tim 2:12; Rev 3:21;
5:10; 20:4–5; cf. 1 Cor 4:8; 6:1–3).24 As Robert Saucy explains, “Such a
coreign of believers with Christ in his messianic kingdom … is not possible
if that reign is concluded with the handing over of the kingdom to the
Father at the coming of Christ.”25 ere is simply no time for it to take
place.26
In contrast, amillennialists believe that the mediatorial reign of Christ in
1 Corinthians 15:25 began when He rose from the dead and was exalted to
the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:36; Heb 1:3).27 According to this view,
this reign of Christ continues throughout the present age until the Second
Coming, when He abolishes death and delivers the kingdom over to the
Father. As Wallis argues, however, Paul’s use of the Psalms in 1 Corinthians
15 (Psa 110:1 in verse 25b and Psa 8:6 in verse 27a) demonstrates that this is
not possible.28
Wallis’ argument begins by noting that the writer of Hebrews makes
similar use of the same two passages—Psalm 110:1 in Hebrews 1:13 and
Psalm 8:6 in Hebrews 2:8. According to Wallis, the parallel use of these
Psalms allows 1 Corinthians 15:20–28 and Hebrews 1–2 to “mutually
support and explain one another.”29 erefore, because the use of these
Psalms in Hebrews indicates that the subjugation of the enemies of Christ is
accomplished not in the present age but in the age to come, the mediatorial
reign in 1 Corinthians 15 must take place in the future, aer the Second
Coming.30
Here is the essence of the argument: Aer Jesus rose from the dead, He
was exalted to the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:36; Heb 1:3), where He
was given the position of authority over all powers and authorities (Eph
1:20–23; 1 Pet 3:22). What Jesus was given in position (Heb 2:7–8a),
however, has not yet been fully realized in practice, for these enemies have
not yet been subjected to Him (Heb 2:8b; cf. Heb 1:13).31 In other words,
even though Jesus was granted authority over all things, “now we do not yet
see all things subjected to him” (Heb 2:8; emphasis added), for when He sat
down at the right hand of the Father, Jesus began “waiting from that time
onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet” (Heb 10:13). is
subjection of all rulers and powers and authorities, then, is yet future, being
identi ed by the writer of Hebrews with “the world to come” (Heb 2:5).32
As Saucy explains, “Although Christ has been exalted to the messianic
kingship, nowhere else in the New Testament is he said to be presently
exercising that kingship in an actual ‘reigning’ over his enemies.”33 Hebrews
emphasizes that His subjugation of all things is yet future (1:13; 2:5–8;
10:12–13), in the world to come (2:5), and 1 Corinthians 15 portrays the
subjugation of God’s enemies taking place during the reign of Christ
between the Second Coming and “the end” (vv. 23–26).34 For this reason, it
is best to understand the mediatorial reign of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:25
as a reference to an intermediate kingdom between the present age and the
eternal state. Rather than posing a problem for premillennialism, then, 1
Corinthians 15:20–28 coincides with its straightforward interpretation of
the millennial kingdom in Revelation 20.

e Case for a Final Modification

Premillennialists oen note that Paul refers to three stages of resurrection in
1 Corinthians 15:23–24: (1) the resurrection of Jesus, (2) the resurrection of
believers at the Second Coming, and (3) the resurrection of everyone else at
the conclusion of the messianic kingdom.35 Amillennialists agree that verse
23 refers to the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the saints, but
Paul’s introductory words, “each in his own order” (e{kastoV … ejn tw:/ ijdivw/
tavgmati) seem to imply a sequence of more than just two stages.36 For this
reason, most premillennialists see “the end” (to; tevloV) in verse 24 as “the
end of the resurrection process—a resurrection of the wicked dead removed
by a signi cant interval from the resurrection of the righteous dead at the
parousia.”37
According to this argument, when the apostle presents this sequence
—“Christ the rst fruits, aer that those who are Christ’s at His coming,
then comes the end” (1 Cor 15:23–24a)—“the end is a distinguishable stage
of resurrection parallel to the resurrection of Christ Himself and then to the
resurrection of those who belong to Him, who are raised at His return.”38
More speci cally, this “third stage of the resurrection sequence”39 is said to
be the resurrection of the wicked at the conclusion of the millennial
kingdom (Rev 20:5a, 13), a thousand years aer the resurrection of the
righteous (Rev 20:4–6).40 As Robert Culver argues, if 1 Corinthians 15:23–
24 speci es three groups in the resurrection of men, “then this passage
clearly teaches premillennialism.”41
In contrast, other premillennialists believe that “the end” is better
understood as the consummation of redemptive history rather than a
reference to the nal stage in the resurrection sequence. is view is
consistent with a common use of the noun tevloV—“the goal or outcome
toward which a movement is being directed”42—and it ts the immediate
context, which focuses broadly on the scope of redemptive history. But even
if “the end” is not an explicit reference to a third resurrection, the
abolishment of death as the nal enemy (vv. 24–26) necessitates the
resurrection of this third group of individuals at the same time,43 for it
“must logically entail a reversal of state for those who are dead at that
time.”44 Because only “those who are Christ’s” are said to be raised at the
Second Coming (v. 23), the resurrection of everyone else must occur when
death is abolished at the arrival of “the end.”45 is results in a nal
modi cation (once again, note the italics below) of the previously proposed
sequence of events:

e Sequence of Events in 1 Corinthians 15:23–28

 1. Christ is resurrected as the rst fruits (v. 23a).
2. Christ’s people are resurrected at His Second Coming (v. 23b).
3. Christ reigns on earth and continues the process of subjugating
His enemies (vv. 24c–25).
4. Christ abolishes His nal enemy (v. 24c), which is death (v. 26).
5. Unbelievers are resurrected when death is abolished (vv. 24–26).
6. Christ delivers up the kingdom to the Father (v. 24b).
7. en comes the end (v. 24a).
8. e Father is all in all (vv. 27–28).

A Summary of the Premillennial Response

To summarize, then, the amillennial argument from 1 Corinthians 15:20–28
falls short for a number of reasons: (1) the temporal adverb ei\ta (“then”) in
verse 24 clearly allows for a lengthy gap of time for an intermediate kingdom
between “His coming” and “the end;” (2) the two o{tan clauses in verse 24
indicate a sequence of events in which the subjection of all things to Christ
and the deliverance of the kingdom to the Father must take place between
the Second Coming and “the end,” which requires a gap of time; (3) the
reign of Christ in verse 25 must take place in the future, between the Second
Coming and “the end,” because both the co-reign of believers with Christ
and the subjection of all things to Christ are yet future; and (4) “the end” in
verses 24–26 requires a third resurrection—the resurrection of unbelievers
unto judgment—which is separate from the resurrection of Christ’s people
at His coming. For these reasons, 1 Corinthians 15:20–28 actually provides a
much stronger argument for premillennialism than it does for
amillennialism.

THE ARGUMENT FROM 1 CORINTHIANS 15:50–57

Amillennialists believe that this connection between the Second Coming,
the resurrection of believers, and the nal destruction of death is
strengthened further by 1 Corinthians 15:50–57, where Paul writes:

Now I say this, brethren, that esh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be
changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet;
for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable,
and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the
imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when
this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal
will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is
written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP IN VICTORY. O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR
VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?” e sting of death is sin,
and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us
the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:50–57).

e Amillennial Argument
According to amillennialists, this passage presents two insurmountable
obstacles for the eschatology of premillennialism. e rst obstacle is Paul’s
assertion that esh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (v. 50),
which is said to preclude the possibility of an intermediate kingdom
inhabited in part by people in their natural bodies.46 According to this
argument, premillennialism asserts that those who inherit the kingdom of
Revelation 20 will include non-glori ed believers, but 1 Corinthians 15:50
denies this possibility.47 According to amillennialist Sam Storms, this leaves
premillennialists with two options: “either deny these believers that
inheritance of the kingdom which Christ has promised … or recognize that
1 Corinthians 15:50 precludes the millennial age traditionally de ned and
defended by the premillennialist.”48
e second obstacle is that Paul’s description of death being abolished at
the Second Coming (1 Cor 15:51–57) excludes the possibility of an
intermediate kingdom in which people continue to die. According to this
argument, at the time of the Second Coming—referred to as “the last
trumpet” in verse 52—not only will the dead in Christ be resurrected and
glori ed (vv. 50–53), but death itself will be swallowed up in victory (vv. 54–
57). e death of death, in other words, will occur at the same time as the
resurrection of the righteous and the Second Advent of Jesus, ushering in
the eternal state in which death is no more (Rev 21:1–4).49
 Amillennialists believe that Paul’s quotation of Isaiah 25:8 in 1
Corinthians 15:54 con rms that death will be abolished at the Second
Coming. As Storms explains:

According to Isaiah 25:8, not only will God “swallow up death

forever,” he will also at that time “wipe away tears from all faces.”
Both these events will occur … at the time of the second coming. But
according to Revelation 21:1–4, it is at the time of the creation of the
new heavens and new earth that God “will wipe away every tear
from their eyes, and death shall be no more” (21:4).50

According to Storms, this presents premillennialism with an impossible

dilemma:

How can these two prophesied events (Isa. 25:7–9) nd their

ful llment at the close of a 1,000-year post-parousia millennial
kingdom when Paul has so clearly stated that they nd their
ful llment at the time of the second coming of Christ? Is it not
obvious that at the second coming of Christ the new heavens and
new earth are created and the eternal state begins? Is it not equally
obvious, therefore, that there is no room or place or role in either
Paul’s or John’s theology for an intervening millennial kingdom? Is it
not obvious that death’s death at the second coming and the wiping
away of all tears at the second coming, both of which mark the
inauguration of the new heavens and new earth, preclude the
existence of any such millennial kingdom?51

First Corinthians 15:50–57, then, is said to present two insurmountable

obstacles for premillennialism: (1) Paul’s assertion that esh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God (v. 50) precludes the possibility of an
intermediate kingdom including people in their natural bodies; and (2)
Paul’s assertion that death will be abolished at the Second Coming (vv. 51–
57) precludes the possibility of a post-parousia kingdom in which death
continues to exist. To harmonize 1 Corinthians 15:50–57 with the earthly
reign of Christ in Revelation 20, the premillennialist must overcome these
obstacles.
e Premillennial View of 1 Corinthians 15:50
e rst obstacle concerns 1 Corinthians 15:50. When Paul refers to the
inability of “ esh and blood” to inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50),
he does not mean that those who inherit the kingdom will exist in a non-
physical state. Instead, the expression “ esh and blood” refers to human
bodies as they now exist in their present state of mortality—in the likeness
of Adam aer the fall—being subject to weakness, corruption, decay, and
ultimately death.52 According to 1 Corinthians 15:50, those who have
believed in Christ cannot inherit the kingdom of God in these mortal bodies
(v. 50a), for the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable (v. 50b).
erefore, all believers, both the living and the dead, must rst experience
the radical transformation of glori cation before they can inherit this
kingdom (1 Cor 15:51–53).
For this reason, amillennialists are right to object to any scenario in
which people are said to inherit the kingdom of 1 Corinthians 15:50 in their
natural, un-glori ed bodies. But in contrast to the claims of amillennialists,
even though some premillennialists have understood 1 Corinthians 15:50 as
a reference to the intermediate kingdom,53 this view is not required by the
premillenialism. Instead, as other premillennialists have asserted, it is better
to understand the kingdom of God in 1 Corinthians 15:50 as a reference to
the eternal state, the kingdom which has been handed over to the Father
aer the millennial reign of Jesus (1 Cor 15:24–25).54
In 1 Corinthians 15, premillennialism distinguishes between the
millennium, during which Christ must reign on earth until all of His
enemies are defeated (v. 25), and the eternal state, which begins when Jesus
hands the kingdom over to the Father at “the end” (v. 24). As Saucy explains:

In the reign of Christ and its transfer to the Father at the end, Paul
portrays the completion of the Messiah’s work of redemption…. e
handing over of the kingdom to the Father thus signi es nothing less
than the conclusion of the messianic administration of the kingdom
through which Christ brings all things back under the rule or
kingdom of God.55
 In 1 Corinthians 15:50, then, when Paul writes that non-glori ed people
cannot inherit “the kingdom of God,” he is speci cally referring to the
eternal state. Although premillennialism affirms the existence of non-
glori ed individuals in the intermediate kingdom of the Son, when the last
enemy is defeated and Jesus hands the kingdom over to the Father, death
will be abolished and all who enter the eternal kingdom of God will exist in
a glori ed state. For this reason—in contrast to the claim of amillennialists
—premillennialism does not require that some will inherit this eternal
kingdom in their natural bodies, and 1 Corinthians 15:50 does not preclude
the possibility of an intermediate kingdom.56
e amillennialist cannot raise a categorical objection to a distinction
between the kingdom reign of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:25 and “the
kingdom of God” in 1 Corinthians 15:50, for amillennialism also makes a
distinction between the two, seeing the former as the present age and the
latter as the eternal state. If the amillennialist insists that the two must be
equated, then 1 Corinthians 15:50 presents an insurmountable obstacle for
his own view as well, for this would require that believers today are part of
the kingdom of God even though they have not yet been glori ed. For this
reason, 1 Corinthians 15:50 itself presents no more of a problem for
premillennialism than it does for amillennialism.

e Premillennial View of 1 Corinthians 15:51–57

According to the second obstacle, Paul’s assertion that death will be
abolished at the Second Coming (1 Cor 15:51–57) precludes the possibility
of an intermediate kingdom in which death continues to exist. is is the
heart of the amillennial argument from this passage, and it raises a crucial
question: Does 1 Corinthians 15:51–57 indicate that death is abolished once
and for all at the Second Coming of Christ? Put another way, can 1
Corinthians 15:51–57 be harmonized with an intermediate kingdom in
which death continues to exist for a thousand years aer the return of
Christ? Amillennialists say no, but premillennialists believe it can.
e most plausible way to harmonize 1 Corinthians 15:51–57 with
Revelation 20 is to see the language of victory over death in this passage as
applicable to each stage of resurrection set forth in Scripture.57 According to
this view, verses 51–53 do indeed describe the glori cation of believers at
the return of Christ, but this transformation of God’s people does not signify
the nal destruction of death as an enemy which is able to claim other lives.
Instead, when the saints are glori ed at the return of Christ, they themselves
experience this victory over death as they are clothed with immortality, but
the nal destruction of death itself remains future, taking place when death
and Hades are cast into the Lake of Fire at the end of the millennium (Rev
20:14; cf. 21:4).
e crux of the issue involves Paul’s use of the Old Testament in 1
Corinthians 15:54–55. In these verses, the apostle says that when believers
are glori ed at the return of Christ, the words of Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14
will be ful lled:

But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this
mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying
that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP IN VICTORY [ISA 25:8]. O
DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING [Hos
13:14]?”58

In contrast to the amillennial interpretation, it is not necessary to see Paul’s

use of Isaiah 25:8 in verse 54 as a once-and-for-all ful llment of this
prophecy which signals the nal defeat of death so that it no longer exists.59
Instead, when Paul says that the words of Isaiah 25:8 “will come about”
(genhvsetai) when the saints are glori ed at the return of Jesus, he means
that this victory will become a reality for God’s people—those who are His
children at the time of Christ’s coming—when they undergo this radical
transformation. But again, this does not rule out the possibility that others
will subsequently be raised from the dead and/or experience the same
victory over death described in this passage.
is view does not require a gap of time between the o{tan clause in
verse 54a and the tovte clause in verses 54b–55, for this victory will indeed
take place when God’s people are glori ed at the return of Christ. is view
is also consistent with both the larger context of 1 Corinthians 15 and the
immediate context of verses 50–57.
With regard to the larger context, if the premillennial interpretation
defended above is correct, 1 Corinthians 15:23–28 sets forth the following
sequence of eschatological events:

e resurrection of Christ (v. 23a)

e resurrection of the saints at the return of Christ (v. 23b)
e reign of Christ in which He subjugates His enemies (vv. 24c–
25)
e abolishment of death as the nal enemy (vv. 24c, 26)
e deliverance of the kingdom to the Father (v. 24b; vv. 27–28)

For this reason, when Paul describes the glori cation of God’s people at the
return of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:51–57, it must be understood in light of
this previously established sequence of events.60 erefore, because the
future messianic reign of Christ will take place between this glori cation of
God’s people and the nal destruction of death, death must not be
completely abolished at the Second Coming. e need to harmonize both
passages leads to an interpretation of verses 54–57 in which the Old
Testament language of victory over death applies to this stage in the
resurrection process, even though it is not the nal one.
With regard to the immediate context, Paul’s primary concern in verses
50–57 is not to set forth a comprehensive outline of eschatological events. As
George Eldon Ladd explains, the apostle “is far more concerned with the
ultimate outcome and with the immediate application of it than he is with
the stages by which the consummation is realized.”61 For this reason, aer
Paul sets forth the universal principle in verse 50 that mere mortal human
beings cannot inherit the kingdom of the eternal state, his primary purpose
is to address the direct implications of this for his immediate readers. But
because he does not know when Jesus will return, Paul includes both
possibilities in verses 51–53—that some will still be living at this time and
that others will have died:

Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be
changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet;
for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable,
and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the
imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality (1 Cor
15:51–53).62
 Even though the Corinthian believers presently exist in perishable
bodies and are therefore currently un t for the eternal kingdom of the
Father, Paul says they will be transformed and glori ed at the coming of
Christ, whether dead or alive when this occurs. According to verses 54–55,
when this transformation takes place—when God’s people are clothed with
immortality—they will experience the victory over death described in the
Old Testament, for “then will come about the saying that is written, ‘DEATH
IS SWALLOWED UP IN VICTORY. O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH,
WHERE IS YOUR STING?’” (1 Cor 15:54–55). In other words, those who are
glori ed at the return of Christ will experience the victory over death which
was purchased by Christ through His work of redemption (2 Tim 1:10),63
and when they do, the victorious words of Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 will
become a reality in their lives. As Paul celebrates in verses 56–57: “e sting
of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who
gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 15:56–57).
e primary concern of 1 Corinthians 15:50–57, then, is the future
glori cation of the saints at the time of Christ’s return, which makes them t
for the eternal kingdom of God. But nothing in this passage explicitly
precludes (a) the existence of death in an intermediate kingdom aer the
Second Coming; (b) the future glori cation of any who believe in Christ
during this intermediate kingdom; or (c) the resurrection of the wicked unto
judgment at the end of this intermediate kingdom. Paul did not concern
himself with any of these scenarios because none of them directly involved
the Corinthians or other believers in the present age, and therefore he had
no reason to mention them.
Returning to the two obstacles in 1 Corinthians 15, then, verse 50 does
not preclude the possibility of natural bodies in the intermediate kingdom,
and verses 51–57 do not preclude the possibility of physical death in the
intermediate kingdom. As demonstrated above, Paul’s teaching can be
harmonized with the millennium of Revelation 20 in a way that honors the
divine intention of both passages, and therefore 1 Corinthians 15:50–57 fails
to provide any insurmountable difficulties for the eschatology of
premillennialism.64

CONCLUSION
Amillennialists believe that the two-age model of the New Testament
precludes the possibility of an intermediate kingdom for three speci c
reasons: (1) the successiveness of the two ages eliminates the possibility of
an interval of time between this age and the age to come; (2) the qualities of
the age to come are incompatible with an intermediate kingdom which
includes sin and death; and (3) the dividing line between the two ages
indicates that the Second Coming immediately ushers in the eternal state,
leaving no room for an intermediate kingdom.
As demonstrated in chapters 6–10, however, these three arguments fail
to disprove the possibility of an intermediate kingdom: (1) e millennium
of Revelation 20 is best understood as the initial phase of the age to come,
and therefore the biblical references to the two ages do not require an
interval of time between them to accommodate an intermediate kingdom;
(2) the qualities ascribed to the age to come in Scripture are compatible with
the millennial kingdom as the rst phase of that coming age, and therefore
the characteristics of the two ages fail to provide a compelling argument
against premillennialism; and (3) the Bible’s description of the dividing line
between the two ages fails to demonstrate that the Second Coming
introduces the eternal state, and therefore the millennial kingdom can be
harmonized with the remainder of the New Testament. Put simply, the two-
age model fails to disprove the existence of the millennial kingdom taught so
clearly in Revelation 20, and therefore it poses no compelling refutation of
the eschatology of premillennialism.

1 Cornelis P. Venema, e Promise of the Future (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2000),
250–51.
2 Ibid., 251.
3 Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: e Amillennial Alternative (Ross-shire, Scotland:
Mentor, 2013), 151. According to amillennialists, an additional problem for
premillennialism concerns the signi cance of death being identi ed as “the last
enemy” in verse 26. If the nal enemy of God is abolished at the Second Coming, how
can so many of His enemies still remain a thousand years later, as the premillennial
interpretation of Rev 20:1–10 requires? (Samuel E. Waldron, e End Times Made
Simple: How Could Everyone Be So Wrong About Biblical Prophecy? [Amityville, NY:
Calvary Press, 2003], 82; William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today [Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1966], 105–6). For amillennialists, this
indicates that the millennium of Revelation 20 “must occur prior to the destruction of
 the last enemy at Christ’s second coming” and it renders the premillennial
interpretation of Rev 20:1–10 “impossible” (Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 82).
According to amillenialist Robert Strimple, premillennialists must believe “that Paul
speaks of two victories over death in this chapter: a preliminary one at Christ’s coming
and the resurrection of believers (vv. 54–55), and a nal one aer the Millennium at
the resurrection and judgment of unbelievers (vv. 24–26)” (“Amillennialism,” 111;
emphasis original). Strimple argues that nothing in Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 15
supports this view: “In both these sections he speaks simply of ‘death’ absolutely,
without further quali cation.”
4 Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 82; Jonathan Menn, Biblical Eschatology
(Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2013), 354–55. According to Samuel Waldron,
“In light of 1 Cor. 15:21–28 a premillennial interpretation of Rev. 20:1–10 is
impossible” (e End Times Made Simple, 82).
5 In the absence of a verb, the Greek literally reads, “then the end” (ei\ta to; tevloV), but
interpreters on both sides of the debate agree that the verb “comes”—or something
very similar—must be supplied in the English translation.
6 Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, expanded
ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013), 102.
7 Ibid.
8 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 249.
9 Ibid., 249–50.
10 Ibid., 250. Venema also claims that ei\ta is used in 1 ess 4:17 to express an
immediate sequence of events with no intervening period of time, but the adverb used
in that verse is actually e[peita.
11 Ibid. In contrast, other amillennialists acknowledge that ei\ta may be used to describe a
sequence of events either with or without a chronological interval (Geerhardus Vos,
e Pauline Eschatology [1930; repr., Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, 1994], 244; Storms, Kingdom Come, 144).
12 e remaining occurrence is found in Heb 12:9, where ei\ta introduces an additional
stage in an argument (“furthermore”), rather than what comes next in a sequence of
events (Frederick William Danker, e Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009], 113; BDAG, 295). For some
reason, amillennialist Robert Reymond appeals to this less common use of ei\ta as
evidence against the premillennial view of a temporal gap between verses 23 and 24
(Robert L. Reymond, “Response by Robert L. Reymond,” in Perspectives on Israel and
the Church: 4 Views, ed. Chad O. Brand [Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2015],
212). But this non-temporal use of the adverb is not relevant to the debate over 1 Cor
15:23–24, because both sides agree that the adverb introduces what comes next in a
sequence of events. e disagreement is not over whether Paul’s use of ei\ta is temporal
(both sides agree that it is), but rather whether this next event will occur immediately
or aer a gap of time.
13 Outside of 1 Cor 15:24, Paul uses ei\ta this way either three or four out of four times,
depending on how the use in 1 Tim 3:10 is classi ed.
14 e remaining four uses of e[peita (1 Cor 12:28 [2x]; Heb 7:2; Jas 3:17) are not
temporal, but instead are used to describe that which is “next in position of an
enumeration of items” (BDAG, 361).
15 Outside of 1 Cor 15:24, Paul uses ei\ta and e[peita this way either nine or 10 out of 12
times, depending on how the use in 1 Tim 3:10 is classi ed.
16 Craig A. Blaising, “A Premillennial Response to Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.,” in ree Views
on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing), 79; Craig A. Blaising, “e Kingdom that Comes with Jesus:
Premillennialism and the Harmony of Scripture,” in e Return of Christ: A
Premillennial Perspective, eds. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 2011), 147; Michael Vlach, “e Eschatology of the Pauline
Epistles,” in e Return of Christ: A Premillennial Perspective, eds. David L. Allen and
Steve W. Lemke (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2011), 261. In addition, as Robert
Saucy notes, “If Paul had desired to say that the ‘end’ occurred at the coming of Christ,
he could easily have used another adverb (tovte, meaning ‘at that time’) for the second
‘then’” (Robert L. Saucy, e Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: e Interface
Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational eology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 1993], 281). But Godet takes this argument too far when he insists that the
use of tovte is required if Paul intended to communicate that “the end” will take place
immediately aer the Second Coming (F. L. Godet, Commentary on the First Epistle of
St. Paul to the Corinthians [reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957], 2:357).
According to Godet, Paul’s use of ei\ta instead demands an interval of time between the
two, but as previously discussed, sometimes ei\ta does introduce an event that happens
immediately aer the previous one (Mark 8:25; Luke 8:12; John 13:5; 19:27; 20:27).
17 According to Riddlebarger, “Despite their professed literal method of interpretation,
premillenarians must nd or insert these long intervals between resurrections to
support the separation of the nal judgment from Christ’s coming, justifying a one-
thousand-year earthly millennium” (A Case for Amillennialism, 102).
18 According to premillennialist D. Edmond Hiebert, such a gap “is not only possible, but
the most probable understanding of Paul’s meaning” (D. Edmond Hiebert, “Evidence
from 1 Corinthians 15,” in A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, ed. Donald
K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend [Chicago: Moody Press, 1992], 230).
19 Wilbur Wallis, “e Problem of an Intermediate Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:20–28,”
JETS 18, no. 4 (Fall 1975): 230. For this reason, the rst o{tan clause modi es the main
clause in verse 24—ei\ta to; tevloV (“then comes the end”)—whereas the second o{tan
clause modi es the rst o{tan clause. is is recognized even by amillennialist Sam
Storms, who writes that the second “when” clause “describes the conditions that must
be ful lled before the kingdom is handed over to the Father” (Kingdom Come, 145).
20 is same temporal relationship is expressed by several other translations (NASB, RSV,
NRSV, NET, NIV, NLT, ASV), although most not as clearly as the ESV.
21 Wallis, “e Problem of an Intermediate Kingdom,” 231.
22 Amillennialism is able to accommodate the sequence of events listed above, as long as
(2), (3), (4), and (5) all occur in immediate succession, one right aer the other, with
little or no gap of time separating them. For this reason, the premillennialist must be
able to show that a temporal gap exists between the Second Coming and these other
events.
23 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 282.
24 Ibid., 282–83.
25 Ibid., 282.
26 Ibid., 106. As Saucy explains, because the believers’ co-reign with Christ is yet future,
according to the amillennial view the believers’ co-reign with Christ would appear to
be either (a) placed in the eternal state or (b) limited to participation in the nal
judgment at the Second Coming. As to the former, Scripture does portray the saints
reigning throughout eternity, apparently with God and Christ (Rev 22:5; cf. v. 1), but
this co-reign “aer the work of the Messiah is completed hardly does justice to the total
biblical picture of God’s historical purpose for humanity and the full redemption
brought through the Messiah” (283). “As to the latter, while judging in the sense of
judicial action is an essential part of reigning, it seems inadequate for the total concept
of that term and the promises that we shall ‘reign on the earth’ (Rev 3:21) and do so for
some period of time (Rev 20:4). A brief role in the nal judgment hardly constitutes
‘reigning’ with Christ in his kingdom” (283).
27 Robert B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond,
ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing), 111. In support of this
view, Strimple also cites Eph 1:20–23, Phil 2:9–11, Heb 10:12–13, and 1 Pet 3:21–22.
28 Wilbur Wallis, “e Use of Psalms 8 and 110 in 1 Corinthians 15:25–27 and Hebrews 1
and 2,” JETS 15, no. 1 (Winter 1972): 26–29; Wallis, “e Problem of an Intermediate
Kingdom,” 239–42.
29 Wallis, “e Use of Psalms 8 and 110,” 29; Wallis, “e Problem of an Intermediate
Kingdom,” 241.
30 Wallis, “e Use of Psalms 8 and 110,” 28; Wallis, “e Problem of an Intermediate
Kingdom,” 241.
31 According to Saucy, even though God has already placed all things under the feet of
Christ (Eph 1:22)—and even though Christ “has already received the rulership of all
things … this task remains to be accomplished as part of his messianic work”
(Progressive Dispensationalism, 283).
32 Wallis, “e Use of Psalms 8 and 110,” 28. According to Wallis: “Jesus Christ has
resumed His place at the Father’s right hand, and is waiting until His enemies shall be
made His footstool, Hebrews 10:13. Parallel to and identical with the subjugation not
yet begun nor accomplished is the subjugation of the world to come mentioned in
[Heb 2:5], which in turn had its antecedent in the promise of [Heb 1:13], ‘Sit at my
right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet.’” To support his
assertion that Heb 2:5–8 continues the argument from Heb 1:13–14, Wallis points to
the resumptive gavr in Heb 2:5 and the continuation of the discussion about angels
 (“e Problem of an Intermediate Kingdom,” 238–39). In this way, the exhortation in
Heb 2:1–4 is seen as parenthetical in the larger ow of thought.
33 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 282. According to Saucy: “Not only is the
language of ‘reign’ never used for his present ministry (unless this instance [in 1 Cor
15:25] is an exception), but the prevailing teaching of the futurity of the kingdom both
in the teaching of Christ and the later church, and the commencement of the actual
exercising of his kingship at the parousia argue against this ‘reign’ during the present
age.”
34 Wallis, “e Use of Psalms 8 and 110,” 28; Wallis, “e Problem of an Intermediate
Kingdom,” 240.
35 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 285–86; Craig A. Blaising, “A Premillennial
Response to Robert B. Strimple,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed.
Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1999), 151; Blaising, “e
Kingdom that Comes with Jesus,” 146; Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock,
Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 273; Robert D.
Culver, “A Neglected Millennial Passage from Saint Paul,” BibSac 113, no. 450 (Apr
1956): 142–49; Charles L. Feinberg, Millennialism: e Two Major Views, 3rd ed.
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 349–50; Robert D. Culver, Systematic eology: Biblical
and Historical (Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2005), 1056.
36 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 285. is argument is persuasive, and yet it is also
possible that Paul merely intends a sequence of two resurrections, especially since the
rst two events are so clearly identi ed as resurrections, whereas the third event is
simply described as the arrival of “the end” (to; tevloV).
37 Culver, “A Neglected Millennial Passage,” 149.
38 Bock and Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism, 273.
39 Blaising, “e Kingdom that Comes with Jesus,” 146.
40 is is what the apostle John refers to in Rev 20:5a (“e rest of the dead did not come
to life until the thousand years were completed”) and describes in Rev 20:13 (“And the
sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which
were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds”).
According to Craig Blaising, if “the end” in 1 Cor 15:24a does not refer to the
resurrection of the wicked, then the sequence in verses 23–24 “leaves the resurrection
of unbelievers unaccounted for” (“A Premillennial Response,” 151). As Saucy explains:
“Since Paul clearly believed in the resurrection of all people, including the unrighteous
(cf. Ac 24:15), the question may be asked, why are only believers mentioned as being
raised at Christ’s coming?” (Progressive Dispensationalism, 285). At the same time, it
should be noted that “the general resurrection of the dead is not Paul’s concern, neither
here nor elsewhere in the argument” (Gordon D. Fee, e First Epistle to the
Corinthians, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1987], 749). Instead, Paul’s
concern is the resurrection of the saints, and he “mentions only those things that are
germane to his argument” (David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT [Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 2003], 709). Furthermore, if the resurrection of the wicked had been of
 concern to Paul, one might expect him to have described their resurrection explicitly
like he did with the others (Fee, e First Epistle to the Corinthians, 750).
41 Culver, “A Neglected Millennial Passage,” 142. As support for this argument, some
premillennialists assert that Paul’s statement in verse 22 that “all will be made alive”
describes the resurrection of all people, both believers and unbelievers. erefore,
because verse 23 unfolds the stages of this universal resurrection, this sequence must
include not only Christ and His people, but also unbelievers as the nal stage of
resurrection (Blaising, “e Kingdom that Comes with Jesus,” 146; Culver, Systematic
eology, 1056; Culver, “A Neglected Millennial Passage,” 145). But the difficulty with
the universal view of “all” is that both “the context and Paul’s theology as a whole make
it clear that in saying ‘in Christ all will be made alive,’ he means ‘in Christ all who are
in Christ will be made alive’” (Fee, e First Epistle to the Corinthians, 749–50;
emphasis original). When Paul writes, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all
shall be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22), the rst “all” refers to those related to Adam, and
the second “all” refers only to those related to Christ. As David Garland explains: “e
analogy assumes human solidarity with those at the beginning of a line who then
become the representatives of those who follow. Adam leads the way and represents
the old order; Christ leads the way and represents the new order. Paul assumes that the
representative determines the fate of the group. All those bound to Adam share his
banishment from Eden, his alienation, and his fate of death so that death becomes the
common lot of his posterity…. All those bound to Christ receive reconciliation and
will share his resurrection and heavenly blessings” (1 Corinthians, 707). is
interpretation makes the best sense of the analogy between Adam and Christ; it affirms
the most common New Testament meaning of the phrase “in Christ”; and it recognizes
that the future resurrection of “those who have fallen asleep in Christ” (v. 18) is the
focus of this entire section. At the same time, the argument for a third resurrection in 1
Cor 15:20–28 does not depend on interpreting Paul’s words, “all will be made alive,” as
a reference to the resurrection of all people.
42 BDAG, 998.
43 Blaising, “A Premillennial Response,” 151; Blaising, “e Kingdom that Comes with
Jesus,” 147; Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 285; George Eldon Ladd, e Gospel
of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1959), 43.
44 Blaising, “A Premillennial Response,” 151. As Blaising explains elsewhere: “e
destruction of death logically means two things: (1) no one dies aer that point, and
(2) any who had been dead up to that point must be raised” (“e Kingdom that
Comes with Jesus,” 147).
45 is certainly entails the resurrection of the wicked (Rev 20:5a, 13) and may include
the resurrection of those who are converted during the millennial kingdom as well.
46 Storms, Kingdom Come, 149–50, 552; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 98, 276.
47 Storms, Kingdom Come, 150.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid., 151; Menn, Biblical Eschatology, 354–55; Cox, Amillennialism Today, 105–6;
According to Strimple, “e adverb ‘then’ (tote) in the middle of verse 54 tells us when
this victory over death will be accomplished. And that ‘then’ points us back to what
Paul has been describing for several verses here: the resurrection of believers. erefore,
we must conclude that victory over death will occur at the resurrection of believers (v.
54), which occurs at the coming of Christ (v. 23), and that this victory occurs at ‘the
end’ (vv. 24–26)” (“Amillennialism,” 110–11; emphasis original).
50 Storms, Kingdom Come, 152.
51 Ibid. Also see Menn, Biblical Eschatology, 43, 75.
52 Wayne Grudem, Systematic eology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1994), 833; Fee, e First Epistle to the Corinthians,
798–99; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 741; W. Harold Mare, “1 Corinthians,” in EBC, ed.
Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1981), 10:291. As Fee
writes, “Most likely it refers simply to the body in its present form, composed of esh
and blood, to be sure, but subject to weakness, decay, and death, and as such ill-suited
for the life of the future” (e First Epistle to the Corinthians, 799). According to
Grudem, “is is the point he has made in the previous four verses (1 Cor. 15:45–49),
in which he has been contrasting Adam with Christ” (Systematic eology, 833).
53 J. Dwight Pentecost, ings to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing, 1978), 175; Alva J. McClain, e Greatness of the Kingdom: An
Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1959), 433.
54 David L. Turner, “e New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:1–22:5,” in Dispensationalism,
Israel and the Church: e Search for De nition, eds. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L.
Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1992), 289; John MacArthur, 1
Corinthians, MacNTC (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1984), 443. According to
MacArthur, “the kingdom of God” in 1 Cor 15:50 is used in its consummate sense as a
reference to the eternal state.
55 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 282.
56 is stands in contrast to the claim of Sam Storms that “amillennialism alone can
account for Paul’s declaration that ‘ esh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God’
(1 Cor. 15:50–57)” (Kingdom Come, 552).
57 Blaising, “A Premillennial Response,” 151.
58 Paul’s citation of Isa 25:8—“Death is swallowed up in victory” (Katepovqh oJ qavnatoV
eijV ni:koV)—differs signi cantly from the LXX, which reads, “Death, being strong,
swallowed [them] up” (katevpien oJ qavnatoV ijscuvsaV). At the same time, Aquila,
eodotion, and Symmachus have differing variants, some of which are very similar to
Paul’s citation, so the apostle may be following a preexisting Greek text (Roy E. Ciampa
and Brian S. Rosner, e First Letter to the Corinthians, PNTC [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 2010], 832; Anthony C. iselton, e First Epistle to the
Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 2000], 1299). According to Gordon Fee, even though the word “victory” is
not found in the Septuagint, the phrase eijV ni:koV is an idiom meaning “forever” in the
 LXX, and so it may render the Hebrew phrase (“forever”) in Isa 25:8 (e First
Epistle to the Corinthians, 803–4).
In his citation of Hos 13:14, Paul modi es the language and adapts a prophecy of
judgment against Ephraim into a taunt against death in which he declares the victory
over the grave (Fee, e First Epistle to the Corinthians, 804; Ciampa and Rosner, e
First Letter to the Corinthians, 834–36; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 745). For an
explanation of Paul’s modi cations of Hosea, see Fee, e First Epistle to the
Corinthians, 804.
59 For this reason, the ful llment of Isa 25:8 in 1 Cor 15:54 should not be viewed as
equivalent to the nal abolishment of death described in 1 Cor 15:24–26.
60 See Blaising, “A Premillennial Resonse,” 151.
61 George Eldon Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1952), 180. As Ladd explains, “e force in the line of reasoning
based on 1 Corinthians 15:23–26 is that Paul is not concerned with the stages by which
Christ’s ultimate triumph is achieved; he is concerned with the certainty of that
triumph whose realization is assured because it has already begun” (emphasis original).
62 e “last trumpet” in verse 52 does not refer to the last in a series, but rather to the
trumpet which announces the eschatological Day of the Lord (Isa 27:13; Joel 2:1; Zeph
1:16; Zech 9:14) (Douglas J. Moo, “A Case for the Posttribulation Rapture,” in ree
Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation, ed. Alan Hultberg
[Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2010], 198; Alan Hultberg, “A Case for the
Prewrath Rapture,” in ree Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or
Posttribulation, ed. Alan Hultberg [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2010], 152).
As Blaising notes, because the Day of the Lord is an eschatological day, “any feature
associated with it is properly ‘last’” (Craig Blaising, “A Pretribulation Response,” in
ree Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation, ed. Alan
Hultberg [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2010], 250; emphasis original). Vos
claims that Paul’s reference to the last trumpet “excludes the prospect of any further
crisis” (e Pauline Eschatology, 246), but he fails to provide evidence for this
assertion.
63 rough His triumph at the cross, Christ has “abolished death and brought life and
immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim 1:10), but this positional victory has
not yet been realized in the experience of God’s people.
64 Amillennialists also point to Rom 8:17–23 as an indication that sin and death will no
longer exist aer the Second Coming. In this passage, not only will creation itself “be
set free from its slavery to corruption” (v. 21), but the children of God will be glori ed
with Christ, being fully delivered from sin (vv. 17–23). Paul speci cally refers to being
“glori ed” with Christ (v. 17); “the glory that is to be revealed to us” (v. 18); “the
revealing of the sons of God” (v. 19); “the glory of the children of God” (v. 21); and
“our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (v. 23). According to
amillennialists, this indicates that the Second Coming will be a time of full deliverance
from sin and all of its effects, a time when the curse is lied and every trace of
wickedness will be removed from the entirety of the created order, including the
children of God. erefore, it is said, Rom 8:17–23 clearly excludes the possibility of an
intermediate kingdom in which sin and death continue aer the Second Coming
(Venema, e Promise of the Future, 94; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 166;
Anthony Hoekema, e Bible and the Future [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1979], 282; Storms, Kingdom Come, 153–54, 551).
In response, premillennialism fully affirms the glori cation of God’s people at the
return of Christ as taught in Romans 8, but this does mean that sin and death are
abolished at the Second Coming. Not only do the Old Testament prophets speak of the
existence of sin and death in the initial phase of the coming kingdom (Isa 65:20; Zech
14:17–19; see chapter 2–4 for a fuller explanation), but Rev 20:7–10 describes a revolt
at the end of the millennium in which unbelievers are deceived by Satan, led into battle
against Christ and the saints, and decisively judged by re from heaven. According to
premillennialists, these unbelievers will arise either from (a) unbelievers who survive
the battle of Rev 19:17–19 and enter the millennial kingdom in non-glori ed bodies or
(b) the descendants of those who are converted during the Tribulation and enter the
millennial kingdom in non-glori ed bodies. Both of these premillennial views are
consistent with the teaching of Romans 8. Under the rst scenario, Romans 8 describes
the glori cation of all God’s people—both dead and alive—at the return of Christ
when He comes to establish His kingdom on earth, but sin and death continue among
those non-glori ed people who populate this kingdom. Under the second scenario,
Romans 8 describes the glori cation of God’s people both at the rapture (1 ess 4:13–
18) and at the Second Coming (Rev 20:4–6)—con ating the two into a single
description—and sin and death continue among those non-glori ed people in the
millennial kingdom. Because nothing in Romans 8 requires that sin and death are
abolished and no longer exist, both views are consistent with the glori cation of God’s
people at the Second Coming of Christ.
 PART 3

e Intermediate
Kingdom
in
Revelation 20
 Chapter 11

e Timing of Satan’s
Binding

INTRODUCTION

Revelation 20 has long been considered the clearest and most convincing
argument for the eschatology of premillennialism. For this reason, any
credible defense of amillennialism must be able to make a compelling case
that its own interpretation of Revelation 20 accurately expresses the divinely
intended meaning of the passage. If amillennialism is not able to do so—if it
is unable to demonstrate how Revelation 20:1–6 is consistent with its
rejection of an intermediate kingdom—the two-age model must be modi ed
to make room for a millennial reign of Christ between the present age and
the eternal state.
In recent years, an increasing number of amillennial voices have risen to
embrace this challenge. Many of them have even insisted that Revelation 20
provides more compelling evidence for amillennialism than it does for
premillennialism. For example, Sam Storms points to Revelation 20 as “a
strong and immovable support for the amillennial perspective;”1 Kim
Riddlebarger describes it as “the weak link in any form of
premillennialism;”2 and Dean Davis argues that “the amillennial approach
gives us a remarkably clear, consistent, and exegetically natural
interpretation of this notoriously challenging text.”3
 is kind of con dence among amillennialists raises the question of
whether premillennialists may have overstated the clarity of John’s teaching
in Revelation 20. e purpose of chapters 11–14 is to re-examine this
monumental passage in the millennial debate, with an emphasis on the
amillennial interpretation of four key exegetical issues—the timing of Satan’s
binding, the nature of the rst resurrection, the duration of the thousand
years, and the chronology of John’s visions. ese four chapters will
demonstrate that the case for the amillennial interpretation is unconvincing
and that Revelation 20 clearly teaches a millennial kingdom between the
present age and the eternal state.4

THE BINDING OF SATAN

In Revelation 20:1–3, John’s vision focuses on the status of Satan during the
millennial reign of Christ:

en I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding 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 Satan, and bound
him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut
it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations
any longer, until the thousand years were completed; aer these
things he must be released for a short time (Rev 20:1–3).

e key question in this passage involves the timing of Satan’s binding. Put
simply, is the binding of Satan present or future? In other words, is Satan
currently bound in the abyss during the present age, or will his thousand-
year imprisonment take place aer the Second Coming of Christ?
Amillennialism sees the binding of Satan as a present reality—the
millennium is now—whereas premillennialism sees it as future, taking place
during an intermediate kingdom between the present age and the eternal
state.

THE PREMILLENNIAL ARGUMENT

e primary reason that Satan’s imprisonment cannot be considered a
present reality is because Revelation 20:1–3 is incompatible with the New
Testament’s portrayal of his in uence during the present age. According to
this passage, Satan will be cut off from all earthly activity during the
thousand-year reign of Christ. e imagery of Satan being bound with a
great chain and cast into the abyss—which is then shut and sealed over him
—provides a vivid picture of the total removal of his in uence on earth.5 In
fact, if a vision were intended to teach that Satan is rendered completely
inactive during the thousand years, it is difficult to imagine how this could
have been portrayed more clearly.6 As G. R. Beasley-Murray writes:

A seal on a prison door ensured that prisoners could not escape

unobserved. Only he who authorized the imprisonment could
authorize release from it (see Dan. 6:17; Mt. 27:66). us the
incarceration of the Devil is trebly circumscribed. He is bound up,
locked in, and sealed over. e writer could hardly have expressed
more emphatically the inability of Satan to harm the race of man.7

In contrast, the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Satan—

who is described as “the god of this age” (oJ qeo;V tou: aijw:noV touvtou) (2
Cor 4:4) and “the ruler of this world” (oJ a[rcwn tou: kovsmou touvtou)
(John 12:31; cf. John 14:30; 16:11; 1 John 4:4)—is extremely active on earth
during the present age. He not only “prowls about like a roaring lion,
seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet 5:8), but he is also involved in a host of
other activities—he tells lies (John 8:44); he tempts believers to sin (1 Cor
7:5; Eph 4:27); he disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:13–15); he
seeks to deceive the children of God (2 Cor 11:3; cf. 2 Cor 2:11); he snatches
the gospel from unbelieving hearts (Matt 13:19; Mark 4:15; Luke 8:12; cf. 1
ess 3:5; 1 Tim 1:20; 4:1–2); he takes advantage of believers (2 Cor 2:11); he
in uences people to lie (Acts 5:3); he holds unbelievers under his power (1
John 5:19; Eph 2:2; Acts 26:18; 1 John 3:8–10); he torments the servants of
God (2 Cor 12:7); he thwarts the progress of ministry (1 ess 2:18; Rev
2:10); he seeks to destroy the faith of believers (Luke 22:31); he wages war
against the church (Eph 6:11–17); and he traps and deceives unbelievers,
holding them captive to do his will (2 Tim 2:26). It is impossible to reconcile
this portrayal of Satan’s activities in the present age with the view that he is
currently sealed in the abyss.
e location of the devil’s imprisonment makes it especially clear that
the con nement of Revelation 20:1–3 will prevent any satanic activity and
in uence on earth during the thousand years. e “abyss” (a[bussoV) is a
prison for evil spirits (Rev 20:7), and the New Testament indicates that when
evil spirits are con ned in this prison, they are prevented from participating
in their normal demonic activities on earth (Luke 8:31; Rev 9:1–3). For this
reason, Satan can either be locked away in the abyss, or he can be engaging
in the various activities ascribed to him in the present age, but he cannot be
both. e description of Satan’s imprisonment in Revelation 20 is
incompatible with the New Testament’s portrayal of his in uence during the
church age, and therefore the binding of Satan cannot be understood as a
present reality.
e difficulty that this presents for amillennialism is obvious: If the
binding of Satan is not a present reality, the thousand years of Revelation 20
must represent a future reign of Christ which will take place between the
present age and the eternal state. is intermediate phase of the coming
kingdom is a key component in the eschatology of premillennialism, but it
presents a signi cant problem for the two-age model of amillennnialism.

THE AMILLENNIAL VIEW

Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger recognizes the challenge that Revelation
20:1–3 presents for his eschatology, conceding that this passage initially
appears to be a formidable objection to the amillennial view. But according
to Riddlebarger, “once we look closely at what John actually taught about the
binding of Satan, the notion of Satan being bound in the present age
becomes an argument in favor of the amillennial position.”8
According to amillennialism, the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1–3
took place at the rst coming of Christ, and his imprisonment in the abyss
extends throughout the present age, concurrent with the millennial reign of
Jesus.9 Rather than describing a future event that will occur at the Second
Coming, then, Satan’s binding was accomplished by Christ when He
conquered the devil through His death and resurrection during His earthly
ministry.10 In this way, amillennialism asserts that the thousand-year
binding of Satan extends from the time of the rst coming of Christ to the
time of His second coming and is therefore a present reality.
In contrast to the premillennial view that the incarceration of Satan
renders him completely inactive on earth, amillennialism sees the binding of
Satan in Revelation 20 as “a gurative description of the way in which Satan’s
activities will be curbed during the thousand-year period.”11 More
speci cally, amillennialists believe that this binding does not eliminate the
activities of Satan on earth, but merely limits them to some extent. As
Riddlebarger explains:

What this binding of Satan means is that, aer the coming of the
long-expected Messiah, Satan lost certain authority that he possessed
prior to the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of the
Savior. It does not mean that all satanic operations cease during the
millennial age, as many opponents of amillennialism mistakenly
assume.12

Amillennialists describe the restriction imposed upon Satan in

Revelation 20 as the limiting,13 the curbing,14 the curtailing,15 the relative
curtailment,16 the partial paralyzing,17 and the restraining18 of the devil’s
in uence on earth, but again, not the elimination of it.19 According to
amillennialist William Cox, “Satan, though bound, still goes about like a
roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. e chain with which he is
bound is a long one, allowing him much freedom of movement.”20 As
William Hendriksen illustrates, “A dog … bound with a long and heavy
chain can do great damage within the circle of his imprisonment.”21
According to amillennialists, then, Satan is indeed bound in the present
age, but his binding is partial rather than absolute.22 is view of Revelation
20:1–3 allows the amillennialist to affirm both the binding of Satan as a
current reality and the present-day activity of Satan as described in the New
Testament. To argue for this view—and against the interpretation of
premillennialism—amillennialists typically point to three related aspects of
the binding of Satan: the signi cance of the abyss, the purpose of the
binding, and the parallels to Revelation 20:1–3 elsewhere in the New
Testament.

e Significance of the Abyss

During the thousand years of Revelation 20:1–3, Satan is said to be bound
and sealed speci cally in the “abyss” (a[bussoV). When addressing the
signi cance of the abyss in this vision, amillennialists typically emphasize
the use of symbolism throughout the passage. For example, Dennis Johnson
writes:

e multiplication of visual features—key, chain, hand, dragon,

throwing, locking, and sealing—underscores the symbolic genre of
the entire vision, since John’s audience knows well that Satan is not a
literal dragon who can be bound with a physical chain or locked
away in a physical pit.23

For this reason, amillennialists believe that the premillennial view of the
abyss as a spatial location imposes “a rigidly wooden and arti cial structure
on symbolism that it simply isn’t designed to sustain.”24 As G. K. Beale
states, understanding the abyss as an actual location is to interpret it “in an
overly literalistic manner.”25
Accordingly, Storms argues that “if the premillennialist insists on saying
that Satan’s being cast into the abyss in Revelation 20 must be interpreted in
a literal, spatial way,” he must also affirm the following in order to be
consistent: (a) the angel was physically holding a literal key that could
literally lock and unlock the pit; (b) the angel was holding a literal chain
with material links that could be measured; (c) the angel literally grabbed
the devil and wrestled him into submission and threw him into this pit; and
(d) Satan was a literal, physical serpent as he is called in verse 2.26 In a
similar way, amillennialist Jonathan Menn insists that consistency requires
the premillennialist to affirm that the abyss in Revelation 20 “is an actual pit
in the earth which has a physical lock and physical ‘seal.’”27
In contrast to the literal interpretation of premillennialism, Beale says
the abyss should be understood as representing a spiritual dimension which
exists alongside—and in the midst of—the earthly dimension.28 In this way,
Beale sees the abyss in Revelation 20:1–3 as “one of the various metaphors
representing the spiritual sphere in which the devil and his accomplices
operate.”29 For this reason, he rejects the idea that the abyss is spatially
removed from the earth30 and that Satan’s con nement in the abyss requires
a complete abolition of his activity on earth.31 is view of the abyss enables
the amillennialist to affirm that Satan prowls about like a roaring lion,
engaged in the various activities ascribed to him in the New Testament,
while simultaneously being con ned to the abyss as described in Revelation
20.
e immediate problem with this argument concerns the false
alternative it establishes between a literal and gurative interpretation of the
abyss. According to the amillennialist, the abyss must be understood as
either (a) a literal reference to a physical, bottomless pit which extends
endlessly into the depths of the earth, or (b) a symbolic metaphor signifying
“the spiritual sphere in which the devil and his accomplices operate.”32 But
this ignores the possibility that the abyss in Revelation 20 is a spirit prison
for demonic beings, an actual location which imprisons them and prevents
them from functioning outside of its con nes. According to this third view,
the abyss is neither a physical hole in the ground (the woodenly literal view)
nor the spiritual sphere of demonic activity in general (the amillennial
view), but rather an actual location in the spiritual realm where evil spirits are
con ned and prevented from roaming free on earth. A careful examination of
a[bussoV indicates that this is indeed the meaning of this word in Revelation
20.
e noun a[bussoV was originally an adjective meaning “bottomless” or
“unfathomable,” and then a noun signifying a deep place.33 In the
Septuagint, it usually translates and most oen refers to “the watery
depths of the earth, whether oceans or springs, in contradistinction to the
land” (e.g., Pss 77:16; 78:15; 106:9; Isa 55:10; Amos 7:4).34 In the Jewish
writings, a[bussoV predominantly referred to a prison where evil spirits were
con ned and punished (e.g., 1 En 10:4–16; 18:11–19:3; 21–22; 88:1–3;
90:24–27; 108:2–6; Jub 5:6–14; Tob 8:3; cf. Isa 24:20–23).35 In the New
Testament, a[bussoV is used only nine times and has two basic usages,
referring either to (a) the realm of the dead (Rom 10:7), or (b) a prison for
evil spirits (Luke 8:31; Rev 9:1–2, 11; 11:7; 17:8).36 Its use in Revelation 20
conveys this second nuance of meaning—a prison for evil spirits—which is
clear from (1) the description of Satan being thrown into the abyss and
having it “sealed” (ejsfravgisen) over him in verse 3, and (2) the description
of Satan being released from his “prison” (fulakhv) in verse 7. Put very
simply, the abyss of Revelation 20 is a spirit prison.
e use of a[bussoV in Luke 8 and Revelation 9 demonstrates that
con nement to this spirit prison entails the complete removal of
demonic/satanic activity and in uence upon the earth. In Luke 8, Jesus
encountered a demon-possessed man and began conversing with the evil
spirits indwelling him (vv. 26–30). ese demons understood full well that
Jesus was “Son of the Most High God” (v. 28), and recognizing His authority
over them, they began “imploring Him not to command them to go away
into the abyss” (v. 31). Instead, they asked if Jesus would permit them to
enter a nearby herd of swine (v. 32)—which He did—and they proceeded to
enter the swine and drive them into the lake where the herd drowned (v. 33).
is remarkable episode in Luke 8 reveals several signi cant truths
about the abyss. First, the abyss in Luke 8:31 must be a speci c spirit prison
which was well-known to both Jesus and the demons. is is clear not
merely from the articular use of a[bussoV,37 but primarily from the way the
demons immediately refer to the abyss as a possible destination now that
Jesus has commanded them to depart from their human victim. Here in
Luke 8:31, the abyss is not some nebulous metaphor in an apocalyptic vision
lled with symbolism—it is a technical term used in narrative literature to
refer to a speci c prison for evil spirits which was familiar to both Jesus and
the demons.
Second, the spirit prison in Luke 8:31 must refer to an actual location.
is can be seen in the way that Luke’s narrative sets the abyss alongside of
the herd of swine as two possible destinations for the demons. Satan and
demons are spiritual beings, but they are not omnipresent—they exist and
function in a speci c location at any given time. When Jesus rst
approached the demon-possessed man, these demons resided inside of this
man (v. 27). But once they “came out of [ejxelqei:n ajpo;] the man” (v. 29), two
locations for their new place of residence were now possible—either they
could “go away into [eijV … ajpelqei:n] the abyss” (v. 31), or they could “enter
into [eijV … eijselqei:n] the swine” (v. 32). In response to the permission of
Jesus, these demons “entered into [eijsh:lqon eijV] the swine” (v. 33). e use
of proper and improper spatial prepositions throughout this narrative—eijV,
ajpo;, and ejk—highlights the possible and actual movements of the demons
into (or out of) speci c places and therefore makes it clear that the abyss
should be understood as a location.
ird, the narrative in Luke 8 indicates that con nement in the abyss
involves the complete removal of demonic activity and in uence upon the
earth. is can be seen in the request of the demons in verse 31. e reason
for the demons’ request was not because of their determination to kill the
swine. e reason for their request was because imprisonment in the abyss
would have cut them off from having any in uence in this world—at least as
long as they were in the abyss—whereas a departure into the swine would
allow them to continue to roam free and wreak havoc on the earth.38 is
indicates that either these evil spirits could be imprisoned in the abyss or
they could be prowling about the earth—engaged in demonic activities—but
they could not be both.39
e various uses of a[bussoV in the book of Revelation leads to a similar
conclusion. For example, in John’s vision in Revelation 9:1–6, a multitude of
demons—pictured as a swarm of “locusts”—must rst be released from the
abyss before it is able to cause harm on the earth. e apostle writes:

en the h angel sounded, and I saw a star from heaven which
had fallen to the earth; and the key of the bottomless pit [th:V
ajbuvssou] was given to him. He opened the bottomless pit [th:V
ajbuvssou], and smoke went up out of the pit, like the smoke of a
great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by the smoke of
the pit. en out of the smoke came locusts upon the earth, and
power was given them, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
ey were told not to hurt the grass of the earth, nor any green
thing, nor any tree, but only the men who do not have the seal of
God on their foreheads. And they were not permitted to kill anyone,
but to torment for ve months; and their torment was like the
torment of a scorpion when it stings a man. And in those days men
 will seek death and will not nd it; they will long to die, and death
ees from them (Rev 9:1–6).

As Craig Blaising observes, the harm caused by these demonic locusts in

this vision occurs only aer the abyss is opened and they are released from
its con nes.40 According to Blaising:

e necessary implication is that their in uence is not experienced

by anyone as long as they are locked up in the pit. e graphic
language about the key, opening the pit, subsequent instructions
about harming, and coming on the earth (eis tēn gēn, v. 3) … all
converges to make the point that these “locusts” had no in uence on
earthly inhabitants prior to the time of their release.41

According to Revelation 9, therefore, con nement of demons in the abyss

entails the complete removal of activity and in uence upon the earth.42
e abyss, then, refers to an actual location in the spiritual realm where
evil spirits are con ned and prevented from roaming free on earth. As
Charles Powell observes:

In every reference to the abyss the being or beings in it must emerge

from it in order to interact with humans. is 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.43

is understanding of con nement in the abyss ts perfectly with John’s

description of Satan’s imprisonment and release in Revelation 20. Not only is
Satan thrown “into the abyss” (eijV th;n a[busson)—which is then “shut”
(e[kleisen) and “sealed over him” (ejsfravgisen ejpavnw aujtou:)—but he
must rst be “released from [luqhvsetai … ejk] his prison” (v. 7) before he
can “come out [ejxeleuvsetai] to deceive the nations which are in the four
corners of the earth” (v. 8). But as long as he is con ned in the abyss, the
devil is not able to depart from his prison and therefore his activity on earth
is completely non-existent.44
 In contrast, the amillennial view that the abyss is a metaphor
representing “the spiritual sphere in which the devil and his accomplices
operate”45 is essentially nonsensical when assumed in the various passages
where a[bussoV is used. For example, what sense does it make for the
demons in Luke 8:31 to plead with Jesus not to cast them into the spiritual
sphere where they normally function? Weren’t they already there prior to
their encounter with Jesus? If the abyss is the spiritual realm in which
demons operate, how is being con ned in the abyss any different from
indwelling the demon-possessed man or the herd of swine?
In Revelation 20, how can Satan be seized and thrown into the spiritual
realm in which he normally functions (v. 3)? Wasn’t he already there prior to
being seized? is would be similar to seizing a dangerous shark in the
Paci c Ocean and locking it in a “prison,” only to then de ne that prison as
the entirety of the Paci c Ocean. Furthermore, what does it mean that Satan
is “sealed” in this realm (v. 3), and what does it mean that he is “released”
from it (v. 7)? How can Satan be either sealed in or released from the realm
in which he usually operates?
By equating the abyss with the spiritual sphere of Satan’s activity, the
amillennial de nition of a[bussoV completely removes the idea of a spirit
prison, in spite of the abyss being “sealed” (ejsfravgisen) over Satan in verse
3 and being designated his “prison” (fulakhv) in verse 7.46 e amillennial
understanding of the abyss is based on neither the consistent use of the word
in the New Testament nor the immediate context of its use in Revelation
20:1–3. Rather than allowing for the kind of freedom that the amillennialist
claims, imprisonment in the abyss eliminates the activity of the devil on
earth and therefore the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 cannot be a
present reality.47

e Purpose of the Binding

One of the primary arguments for the amillennial view focuses on the
purpose of Satan’s binding in Revelation 20. In contrast to the premillennial
view that this binding prevents Satan from engaging in any earthly activity
whatsoever, amillennialists oen point to the purpose clause in Revelation
20:3, which is said to indicate that the devil is bound in one respect and one
respect only: “so that [i{na] he should not deceive the nations any longer”
(3b).48 In the words of amillennialist William Hendriksen, “e devil can do
much, indeed, during this present period of one thousand years. But there is
one thing which, during this period, he cannot do. With respect to this one
thing he is de nitely and securely bound.”49
For this reason, because the binding of Satan only prevents him from
deceiving the nations, amillennialists believe that he is still free to prowl
about the earth like a roaring lion (1 Pet 5:8), partaking in the other
activities attributed to him in the New Testament.50 As Riddlebarger
explains:

e point of John’s vision was that the angel restrains Satan’s evil
activities. His binding does not eliminate them. Even though Satan is
presently bound and cannot deceive the nations, he remains a
dangerous foe, the same way in which a mortally wounded animal is
far more dangerous than a healthy one.51

According to the amillennial view, then, the binding of Satan is a present

reality which consists of a partial restriction of his earthly in uence, leaving
him free to engage in the various activities ascribed to him throughout the
New Testament. Satan’s activity in the present age is limited, but not
eliminated.
e initial problem with this argument is that it mistakenly assumes that
the purpose clause in verse 3 limits the degree of Satan’s con nement.52 e
purpose clause can only state why the action of imprisonment is taken, not
the degree of restriction portrayed, which must be discerned instead from
the immediate context.53 To illustrate, if the warden of a prison puts a
prisoner in solitary con nement for the primary purpose of preventing him
from killing other prisoners, this does not mean that he is then free to steal
from them and do other such activities. Aer all, the location of solitary
con nement completely removes him from the rest of the prison and cuts
him off entirely from the other prisoners. In the same way, the degree of
Satan’s restriction in Revelation 20 is determined not by the purpose clause
alone, but also by the location of his imprisonment, the abyss, which
removes the devil from earth and cuts him off from any in uence there.54
 A second problem with this argument is that the New Testament teaches
that Satan is in fact deceiving the nations during the present age. erefore,
even if the amillennialist were correct in his assertion that Satan is only
prevented from deceiving the nations during the thousand years—
remaining active on earth in every other way—the fact that he is currently
engaged in such deception indicates that the millennium cannot be a
present reality. is can be seen in a number of New Testament passages.
In 2 Corinthians 4:3–4, as Paul describes his apostolic ministry, he writes
that “if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose
case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that
they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the
image of God.” According to this passage, the truth of the gospel is
concealed from unbelievers because the deceptive in uence of Satan has
blinded their minds from understanding and embracing it.55 In a similar
way, 2 Timothy 2:26 describes unbelievers as being caught in the snare of the
devil, having been deceived and held captive by Satan to do his will.56 In
addition, 1 John 5:19 highlights Satan’s deceptive in uence in the hearts of
unbelievers by stating that “the whole world lies in the power of the evil
one.” As Jeffrey Townsend writes, “e New Testament makes it clear that
Satan is now very much involved in the deception of the nations, for what is
the deception of the nations if it is not the deception of individuals who
make up the nations?”57
Furthermore, the book of Revelation teaches that Satan and his demons
will continue to “deceive” (planavw) the nations right up until the time when
Jesus returns to establish His kingdom and Satan is cast into the abyss (Rev
12:9; 13:14; 18:23; 19:20).58 Amillennialists have a particularly difficult time
explaining how Satan can be described as the one “who deceives the whole
world” in Revelation 12:9 while simultaneously being sealed in the abyss “so
that he would not deceive the nations any longer” (Rev 20:3). How can Satan
deceive the whole world (Rev 12:9) and yet be unable to deceive the nations
of the world (Rev 20:3) at the same time? If Satan is prevented from
deceiving the nations during the millennium, and yet he is currently
deceiving the nations—and will continue to do so until the Second Coming
—the thousand years of Revelation 20 cannot be equated with the present
age.
 Some amillennialists respond to this difficulty by insisting that Satan’s
inability to deceive during the thousand years is merely a matter of degree.
According to Hendriksen, “If during the present N.T. era the devil ‘blinds
the minds of unbelievers,’ II Cor. 4:4, that was true even more emphatically
during the old dispensation.”59 But the purpose clause in Revelation 20:3
teaches not that Satan will deceive the nations less emphatically than he
previously did, but that he will deceive the nations no longer (mh; planhvsh/
e[ti). In other words, Satan’s ability to deceive is not limited during the
thousand years, but rather eliminated.
Other amillennialists respond to this difficulty by insisting that the
binding of Satan does not prevent him from engaging in any kind of
deception whatsoever, but rather from deceiving the nations in two speci c
ways. According to this argument, the purpose clause in Revelation 20:3
means that the binding of Satan speci cally precludes him from (a)
deceiving the nations to gather them for an all-out assault against the people
of God,60 and (b) preventing the spread of the gospel to the nations of the
world.61
In support of the rst assertion—that Satan is restrained from gathering
the nations for an all-out assault against the church—amillennialists point to
the connection between verse 3 and verses 7–8.62 In verse 3, Satan is bound
so that he would not deceive the nations until aer the thousand years. In
verses 7–8, aer the thousand years are completed, Satan comes out of the
abyss to deceive the nations and thereby gather them to wage war on the
people of God. If Satan’s release results in an all-out effort to destroy the
church, say amillennialists, this reveals something about the kind of
deception he is prevented from engaging in during the thousand years—it is
not simply deception per se, but rather “deceiving the nations in such a way
as to gather them together for an all-out assault against God’s saints.”63 As
Storms writes:

Although Satan may and will do much in this present age (as the
New Testament epistles clearly indicate), there is one thing of which
John assures us: Satan will never be permitted to incite and organize
the unbelieving nations of the world in a nal, catastrophic assault
 against the Church, until such time as God in his providence so
determines.64

According to amillennialists, the restriction of Satan during the present age

prevents him from inciting the nations to destroy the church as a missionary
institution.65
In support of the second assertion—that Satan is restrained from
preventing the spread of the gospel to the nations—amillennialists generally
point to the broader landscape of redemptive history. According to this
argument, the nations were le in darkness in the Old Testament era, but
through His work of redemption, “Christ curtailed the forces of Satan and
paved the way for the successful proclamation of the gospel throughout the
world.”66 In this way,

e binding of Satan described in Revelation 20:1–3 … means that

throughout the gospel age in which we now live the in uence of
Satan, though certainly not annihilated, is so curtailed that he cannot
prevent the spread of the gospel to the nations of the world.67

As Strimple explains:

e age of salvation for the Gentiles has arrived. Prior to Christ’s

ministry Israel was the one nation called out from all the nations of
the world to know God’s blessings and to serve him. ere were
exceptions, of course—those who came to know God’s grace even
though they were not of the children of Abraham aer the esh. But
essentially all the nations on this earth were in darkness, under
Satan’s deception. But then, praise God! Christ came and
accomplished his redemptive work…. e age of world missions had
begun, and Satan’s deceptive work on that grand scale over so many
centuries had come to an end.68

According to the amillennial view, then, even though Satan blinds the minds
of unbelievers in the present age (2 Cor 4:4), he is unable to incite the
unbelieving world to seek to destroy the church, and he is unable to prevent
the spread of the gospel to the nations (Rev 20:1–3).69
 e problem with the amillennial view of the nature of Satan’s deception
concerns the purpose clause in verse 3. When John says that Satan will be
sealed in the abyss “so that he would not deceive the nations any longer
[e[ti]” (Rev 20:3), this indicates the interruption of something that is already
taking place.70 For this reason, the deception from which Satan is prevented
in Revelation 20:1–3 is a deception that was already taking place prior to his
incarceration in the abyss.71 erefore, when the amillennialist explains this
deception as Satan inciting the nations into an all-out, catastrophic assault
against the church, the question arises—when was this nal catastrophic
assault launched by Satan prior to the cross?72 e amillennialist’s inability
to point to Satan leading the nations of the world in an all-out assault to
destroy the people of God just prior to the cross proves to be an
insurmountable difficulty for this view.73
Equally problematic is the amillennial view that the binding of Satan
simply restrains him from preventing the spread of the gospel to the nations.
e weakness of this explanation is that the purpose clause in verse 3
concerns itself not with the freedom of the church to proclaim the Good
News but with the inability of the nations to embrace it. Properly
understood, satanic deception of the nations does not prevent believers from
preaching the gospel to the world—satanic deception is something that
takes place in the hearts of the unbelievers who make up those nations. Put
another way, satanic deception does not close the mouths of believers; it
deludes the hearts of unbelievers. ere is no indication in Revelation 20:1–
3 that the purpose of Satan’s binding was to allow the gospel to go forth to
Gentiles who had been previously deprived of the Good News.74

e New Testament Parallels

e most common amillennial argument for a present-day binding of Satan
is found not in Revelation 20 itself but rather in other New Testament
passages which are said to illuminate the meaning of John’s vision (e.g., Matt
12:29, Luke 10:17–18, John 12:31–32, Col 2:15, Heb 2:14–15, 1 John 3:8, and
Rev 12:7–12).75 According to amillennialists, “ese passages provide the
biblical context within which the vision of Revelation 20 becomes clear.”76
More speci cally, these passages are said to prove that the binding of Satan
occurred at the time of the rst coming of Christ and therefore that the
thousand years of Revelation 20 is a present reality.
In these passages, Satan is bound (Matt 12:29); he falls from heaven
(Luke 10:17–18); he is cast out (John 12:31–32); he is disarmed and
conquered (Col 2:15); he is rendered powerless (Heb 2:14–15); his works are
destroyed (1 John 3:8); and he is thrown down from heaven to earth (Rev
12:7–11). According to amillennialists, these descriptions of the victory of
Jesus over the devil in the rst century are parallel to the binding of Satan in
Revelation 20 and therefore indicate that this binding took place at the start
of the present age. As Samuel Waldron writes, “e biblical evidence proves
conclusively that any interpretation of [Revelation 20:1–3] that professes to
interpret it in accord with the rest of Scripture must conclude that Satan was
bound by the events of and at the time of Christ’s rst advent.”77
In making this argument, amillennialists appeal to the hermeneutical
principle “that Scripture should interpret Scripture and that the more
obscure passage should be interpreted in the light of the more clear
passage.”78 In this case, amillennialists see Revelation 20:1–3 as the more
obscure passage and Matthew 12:29, Luke 10:17–18, John 12:31–32,
Colossians 2:15, Hebrews 2:14–15, 1 John 3:8, and Revelation 12:7–12 as
those clearer passages which should be used to interpret the binding of
Satan. e problem is that none of these supposed parallels actually refer to
what is described in Revelation 20:1–3, and therefore this approach fails to
bring clarity to the divinely intended meaning of John’s vision.79

Matthew 12:29
e New Testament parallel most oen cited by amillennialists is Matthew
12:29. In this verse, Jesus explains to the Pharisees that His ability to cast out
demons is dependent on His prior act of having bound Satan: “Or how can
anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he
rst binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house” (Matt
12:29). is verse is said to demonstrate that the binding of Satan in
Revelation 20 was accomplished by Jesus during his rst-century earthly
ministry.80 As many amillennialists note, the very same Greek verb “to bind”
(devw) is used with reference to Satan in both Matthew 12:29 and Revelation
20:3, strengthening the case that these passages describe the same action
taken against the devil.81
e initial difficulty with this argument concerns the timing of this
incident in the ministry of Christ. In Matthew 12:29, Jesus speci cally says
He is not able to exorcise the demon “unless he rst [prw:ton] binds the
strong man.” But most amillennialists believe that the binding of Satan in
Revelation 20 took place through the death and resurrection of Christ.
Herein lies the problem: If Jesus had not yet bound Satan through His death
and resurrection (Matt 27–28), how was He able to cast out the demon in
Matthew 12? e amillennial view that the binding of Satan in Revelation 20
was accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus precludes the
possibility that this same binding is described in Matthew 12:29.82
A second difficulty concerns the purpose of Satan’s binding in Revelation
20. As previously discussed, amillennialists oen point to the purpose clause
in verse 3 as indicating that Satan is bound in one respect and one respect
only: “so that he should not deceive the nations any longer” (Rev 20:3).83 But
in Matthew 12:29, the purpose of Satan’s binding was to enable Jesus to heal
the demon-possessed man. To the degree that amillennialists emphasize the
purpose clause in Revelation 20:3 as stating the sole purpose of Satan’s
binding, they weaken their ability to equate that binding with the binding of
the strong man in Matthew 12:29.
But the most signi cant problem with this argument is found in a simple
comparison between the two passages. In Matthew 12:29, Jesus is continuing
His response to accusations that He is casting out demons by the power
Satan, and He does so with a parable. He has already shown that He is
Satan’s enemy (vv. 25–28), and now He explains that He is also Satan’s
master,84 saying: “Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and
carry off his property, unless he rst binds the strong man? And then he will
plunder his house” (Matt 12:29). e point of this parable is that the very
exorcism for which Jesus was condemned is a demonstration of His power
and superiority over Satan. For how could Jesus have plundered the strong
man’s house—robbed Satan of his spiritual property by delivering the
demoniac—unless He had rst bound the strong man and rendered him
powerless to prevent the exorcism?85 According to Jesus, rather than casting
out demons by Satan’s power, He was demonstrating His own power over
the devil when He performed exorcisms.86
In Matthew 12:29, then, the binding of Satan broke the power he had to
possess speci c individuals and thereby enabled Jesus to deliver those
people from Satan’s control. In contrast, the binding of Satan in Revelation
20 involved sealing him in the abyss and preventing him from deceiving the
nations.87 e two passages have more differences than similarities. In
Matthew 12 Satan is bound in his own domain—his own “house,” according
to the parable—but in Revelation 20 he is removed from that domain and
cast into the abyss.88 e binding in Matthew 12 is a local reference to
Satan’s inability to control a single individual through demon possession,89
but the binding in Revelation 20 is a universal reference to Satan’s inability
to deceive the nations of the world. As one amillennialist acknowledges:

e binding of the strong man in the Synoptic Gospels … bears no

recognizable relationship to the thrust of the amillennial view. at
thrust is that the binding of Satan applies only to his ability to
deceive the nations. But where are the nations in the pericopes that
refer to the binding of the strong man? ey are not to be seen. What
is very much in view is the local sufferers from demon possession
and Satan’s inability to prevent Jesus from healing them; what is not
at all in view is the now blessedly undeceived nations.90

e inability of Satan to prevent Jesus from delivering demoniacs (Matt

12:29) is simply not the same as his inability to deceive the nations of the
world (Rev 20:1–3).91 e two passages are not describing the same event,
and therefore Matthew 12:29 provides no support for the amillennial view of
the binding of Satan.

Luke 10:17–18
A second passage oen cited by amillennialists is Luke 10:17–20, which
describes the return of the missionaries sent out by Jesus:

e seventy returned 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 on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power
of the enemy, and nothing will injure you. Nevertheless do not
rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your
names are recorded in heaven.”

e key is verse 18, where Jesus says, “I was watching Satan fall from
heaven like lightning.” According to amillennialists, Satan’s fall from heaven
coincides with the binding of Satan in Revelation 20, and therefore Luke
10:18 provides evidence that Satan’s binding took place in the rst century.92
To use this verse as an argument, however, the amillennialist must be able to
prove not only that the fall of Satan in Luke 10:18 took place during the rst-
century ministry of Jesus, but also that it can be equated with the binding of
Satan in Revelation 20.
Because of the ambiguity of Jesus’s statement in Luke 10:18,
commentators are divided on the timing and nature of Satan’s fall.
According to most interpreters, the fall of Satan refers to either (1) the
original fall of Satan (Isa 14:12), (2) the defeat of Satan when Jesus resisted
his temptations (Luke 4:1–13), (3) the defeat of Satan evidenced by the
exorcism of demons (cf. Luke 11:17–23), or (4) the ultimate judgment of
Satan in the future (Rev 20:10).93 A h possibility combines views (3) and
(4) and asserts that the victory of Jesus over the devil—as evidenced by
demons being cast out in His name—served as a preview of the nal
judgment of Satan, ultimately pointing ahead to his eventual demise in the
lake of re (Rev 20:10).94
But regardless of which view is correct, Jesus simply does not de ne the
fall of Satan clearly enough for the amillennialist to make his case. In fact,
each of these ve interpretations is consistent with the premillennial view
and none of them requires the amillennial view. It is certainly possible to
argue that the description of Satan in Luke 10:18 took place when Jesus
spoke these words—that Satan fell from heaven when demons were cast out
in the rst century—but this does not demonstrate that the binding of Satan
in Revelation 20 occurred at the same time.
To prove that it did, amillennialists point out that the fall of Satan in
Luke 10 is associated with the missionary activity of the seventy.95 For this
reason, it is argued that the fall of Satan curtailed the devil’s power and
paved the way for the successful proclamation of the gospel throughout the
world, just like the binding of Satan in Revelation 20.96 erefore, it is said,
both actions must have occurred in the rst century. As noted above,
however, Revelation 20:3 does not say that the binding of Satan paved the
way for the church to proclaim the gospel to the nations. Furthermore, the
fall of Satan in Luke 10:18 is presented as evidence that the seventy were
given authority to cast out demons, not that the church was now able to
preach the Good News throughout the world. For this reason, even if the
authority of Jesus over demons indicated that Satan was defeated in some
way during the rst century (Luke 10:18), this does not mean that Satan was
sealed in the abyss, unable to deceive the nations (Rev 20:1–3).97 In the
absence of any clear parallels between the two passages, Luke 10:18 falls
short as an argument that the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 is a present
reality.98

John 12:31–32 / Colossians 2:15 / Hebrews 2:14–15 / 1

John 3:8
Several passages cited by amillennialists speci cally refer to the victory that
Jesus accomplished through His death and resurrection as He triumphed
over Satan and redeemed from his control those who repent and believe in
Christ:

John 12:31–32: “Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler
of this world shall be cast out. And I, if I be lied up from the
earth, will draw all men to Myself.”99

Colossians 2:15: “When He had disarmed the rulers and

authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed
over them through Him.”100

Hebrews 2:14–15: “Since then the children share in esh 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.”101

1 John 3:8b: “e Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He
might destroy the works of the devil.”102

According to the amillennialist, these descriptions of the victory of Jesus

over Satan are parallel to the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 and therefore
locate the timing of that binding in the rst-century ministry of Christ.
e main problem with this argument is its inability to account for the
release of Satan in Revelation 20, for whatever is accomplished in the
incarceration of verses 1–3 is undone in the release of verse 7.103 As George
Eldon Ladd explains, the release of Satan is difficult to understand if it is
applied to the Lord’s binding of Satan in His earthly ministry: “e victory
he won over Satan was won once and for all. Satan will never be loosed from
bondage to Christ won by his death and resurrection.”104 In other words, if
the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 refers to Christ’s work of redemption
on the cross (John 12:31–32; Col 2:15; Heb 2:14–15; 1 John 3:8), the nished
work of Christ turns out to be the un nished work of Christ when Satan is
released.105
For example, according to 1 John 3:8 Jesus came to break the dominating
power of sin in the lives of those who believe in Him. But if the victory over
the devil in this verse is equated with the binding of Satan in Revelation
20:3, what does it mean that Satan is released in Revelation 20:7? How can
the effects of this redemptive victory be reversed? Similarly, the victory of
Christ over the devil in Hebrews 2:14–15 consists of Jesus redeeming sinners
from the power of Satan and the fear of death. But if this victory is identi ed
as the binding of Satan in Revelation 20, how can this act of deliverance be
nulli ed when the devil is set free? Likewise, how can the casting out of
Satan in John 12:31–32 be reversed, and how can Christ’s triumph over the
rulers of darkness in Colossians 2:15 be overturned? ese passages must
not describe the same act of divine judgment against Satan as what John
describes in Revelation 20:1–3.
None of these New Testament passages, then, are truly parallel to the
binding of Satan because none of them portray the kind of absolute
con nement described in Revelation 20:1–3.106 For this reason, these cross-
references fail to bring any clarity to the meaning of John’s vision and
therefore fail to provide evidence that the millennium began with the rst-
century ministry of Christ.

CONCLUSION
Hundreds of years before the rst coming of Christ, Satan was “roaming
about on the earth and walking around on it” (Job 1:7), and now, hundreds
of years aer the death and resurrection of Jesus, Satan still “prowls about
like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet 5:8). His ultimate fate
is sealed, but the devil is not currently bound and sealed in the abyss as
described in Revelation 20:1–3. As Robert Saucy explains:

All attempts to apply this picture to the present period, either as a

limitation of Satan’s deceptive power on believers or his inability to
prevent the spread of the gospel in the world, are difficult to
harmonize with the language of the passage and other teaching of
the New Testament. e text gives no indication that the limitation
on Satan is one of degree.107

To the contrary, the con nement of Revelation 20 is absolute and therefore

the binding of Satan is not a present reality. Instead, the thousand years in
John’s vision represents a millennial kingdom which will take place between
the present age and the eternal state (cf. Isa 24:21–23), just as
premillennialism teaches.

1 Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: e Amillennial Alternative (Ross-shire, Scotland:

Mentor, 2013), 137. In describing his journey from premillennialism to
amillennialism, Storms explains that Revelation 20 served not as a hindrance to this
conversion, but rather a catalyst. “Contrary to what I had been taught and long
believed,” Storms writes, “I came to see Revelation 20 as a strong and immovable
support for the amillennial perspective” (ibid.). In fact, unlike many of his fellow
amillennialists, Storms says he embraced amillennialism because of Revelation 20, not
in spite of it (ibid.; Sam Storms, “I Am an Amillennialist ‘because of ’ Revelation 20,”
 accessed on August 3, 2014, http://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/i-
am-an-amillennialist--because-of--revelation-20.).
2 Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, expanded
ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013), 235.
3 Dean Davis, e High King of Heaven: Discovering the Master Keys to the Great End
Time Debate (Enumclaw, WA: WinePress Publishing, 2014), 475. According to Davis,
“Premillennial interpretations of Revelation 20 shatter the simplicity, vitiate the power,
and becloud the glory of NT eschatology, thereby plunging Christ’s Church into
needless confusion and controversy. Meanwhile, the amillennial interpretation
achieves the exact opposite: It wonderfully opens up the meaning of the text itself,
further illumines the structure and message of the book as a whole, harmonizes
perfectly with the rest of NT theology … and prepares, strengthens, and encourages
Christ’s pilgrim Church with a simple, powerful, and unspeakably majestic vision of
the Consummation of all things at the end of the age” (501–2).
4 For a brief discussion of these four exegetical issues, see Matthew Waymeyer, “What
About Revelation 20?,” in Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Futuristic Premillennial Primer,
eds. John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2012), 123–
40.
5 Wayne Grudem, Systematic eology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1994), 1117; Harold W. Hoehner, “Evidence from
Revelation 20,” in A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, eds. Donald K.
Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 250; Robert H.
Mounce, e Book of Revelation, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1977),
353.
6 John F. Walvoord, “e eological Signi cance of Revelation 20:1–6,” in Essays in
Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, eds. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1986), 231.
7 G. R. Beasley-Murray, e Book of Revelation, NCB (Greenwood, SC: e Attic Press,
1974), 285. Even some amillennialists recognize this, for example, G. C. Berkouwer
who states that those who identify the millennium as the present age are forced to
relativize the dimensions of Satan’s binding. Berkouwer writes, “I think it is pertinent
to ask whether this sort of interpretation really does justice to the radical proportions
of the binding of Satan” (G. C. Berkouwer, e Return of Christ: Studies in Dogmatics
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1972], 305).
8 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 237.
9 Samuel E. Waldron, e End Times Made Simple: How Could Everyone Be So Wrong
About Biblical Prophecy? (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2003), 94–95; William
Hendriksen, More an Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation (Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 1967), 187–88.
10 Although most amillennialists emphasize that the binding of Satan was accomplished
through the death and resurrection of Christ, others believe this binding began earlier
when Jesus triumphed over Satan by resisting his temptations in the wilderness (Matt
4:1–11; Luke 4:1–13) (Donald Garlington, “Reigning with Christ: Revelation 20:1–6
 and the Question of the Millennium,” RefR 6, no. 2 [Spring 1997]: 91; Anthony
Hoekema, e Bible and the Future [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1979], 229;
Floyd E. Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1955], 130–31); Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 187).
11 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 228; also see Sydney H. T. Page, “Revelation 20 and
Pauline Eschatology,” JETS 23, no. 1 (March 1980): 35.
12 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 237.
13 William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, 1966), 59; Page, “Revelation 20 and Pauline Eschatology,” 34; Hamilton,
e Basis of Millennial Faith, 132.
14 Page, “Revelation 20 and Pauline Eschatology,” 35; Hendriksen, More an Conquerors,
190; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 228–29.
15 Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 188, 190; Sam Hamstra Jr., “An Idealist View of
Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1998), 120; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 229;
Storms, Kingdom Come, 440.
16 Jonathan Menn, Biblical Eschatology (Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2013), 290.
17 Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 190.
18 Page, “Revelation 20 and Pauline Eschatology,” 34; Robert B. Strimple, “An Amillennial
Response to Craig A. Blaising,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed.
Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1999), 273; Leon Morris,
Revelation, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1987), 229; Riddlebarger, A
Case for Amillennialism, 237, 239.
19 Hamstra, “An Idealist View of Revelation,” 120; Riddlebarger, A Case for
Amillennialism, 239; Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 190.
20 Cox, Amillennialism Today, 139.
21 Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 190.
22 Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 123.
23 Dennis E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation (Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2001), 283.
24 Storms, Kingdom Come, 445.
25 G. K. Beale, e Book of Revelation, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1999), 987. Storms also rejects the idea of “a localized geo-spatial place called the
abyss” (Kingdom Come, 442), and according to Menn, the abyss in Revelation 20 is
“not spatial” but rather functions as a metaphor (Biblical Eschatology, 18).
26 Storms, Kingdom Come, 442–43.
27 Menn, Biblical Eschatology, 18, 357.
28 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 987. According to Beale, “e abyss and the physical
world are two different dimensions interpenetrating each other or existing alongside
one another” (990); elsewhere he refers to the abyss as “the realm of demons over
which Satan rules” (493). In a similar way, Venema refers to the abyss as “the dwelling
place of the demons” (Cornelis P. Venema, e Promise of the Future [Carlisle, PA:
Banner of Truth, 2000], 316), and Storms calls it “the abode of demons” (Kingdom
 Come, 429) and “the source or abode of those demonic powers that are opposed to
God” (478). But none of them emphasize the fact that the abyss is a “prison” (Rev
20:7). Other amillennialists are even less precise in their explanation of the abyss. For
example, Hoekema says the abyss should “be thought of as a gurative description of
the way in which Satan’s activities will be curbed during the thousand-year period”
(e Bible and the Future, 228), but this explanation communicates the effect of
con nement in the abyss without de ning what the abyss actually is.
29 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 987. is same de nition of the abyss is quoted and
affirmed by Riddlebarger (A Case for Amillennialism, 237) and Menn (Biblical
Eschatology, 357). In addition, Beale also identi es the abyss as “probably” a synonym
for “death and Hades” (e Book of Revelation, 984, 987; also see Riddlebarger, A Case
for Amillennialism, 237).
30 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 990.
31 Ibid., 985–90.
32 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 987.
33 W. L. Liefeld, “Abyss,” in e Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill
C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1976), 1:30; also see BDAG, 2;
Joachim Jeremias, “a[bussoV,” in TDNT, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1964), 1:9; Hans Bietenhard, “a[bussoV,” in NIDNTT, ed. Colin Brown
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1986), 2:205.
34 Walter A. Elwell, “Abyss,” in Baker eological Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Walter A.
Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 9.
35 Otto, Böcher, “a[bussoV,” in EDNT, eds. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing), 1:4; Bietenhard, “a[bussoV,” 2:205; Beale, e Book of
Revelation, 989–90; Elwell, “Abyss,” 9; William J. Webb, “Revelation 20: Exegetical
Considerations,” e Baptist Review of eology 4, no. 2 (Fall 1994): 20. Beale
acknowledges that whenever evil spirits are imprisoned in the abyss in the Jewish
writings, they are always con ned “in a complete way without any exception” (e
Book of Revelation, 989). According to Beale, however, this does not necessitate that
the same reality is depicted in Rev 20:1–3 because these Jewish writings refer to
demons (rather than Satan) being imprisoned in the abyss (989–90). But it is difficult
to understand why Beale would conclude that Satan is able to depart from the abyss if
other demonic beings are not, especially in light of John’s description in Rev 20:3 that
the abyss is sealed over him. Beale also makes the point that “the only apparently
explicit Jewish references to the binding of Satan speak of a ‘binding’ that is not
absolute” (989). But this fails to support the amillennial view, because it is Satan’s
incarceration speci cally in the abyss—not his binding per se—which securely
eliminates his activity on earth during the thousand years of Revelation 20.
36 Jeremias, “a[bussoV,” 1:10; Elwell, “Abyss,” 9.
37 e noun a[bussoV is articular every time it is used in the New Testament to refer to a
spirit prison (Luke 8:31; Rev 9:1, 2, 11; 11:7; 17:8, 20:1, 3). In each case, it is most likely
the “celebrity” or “familiar” use of the article “to point out an object that is well known”
 (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1996], 225).
38 If the demons’ earlier request that Jesus not “torment” them (v. 28) overlaps with their
request not to be sent into the abyss (v. 31), this may imply that this spirit prison is also
a place of torment and therefore that avoiding its torment was an additional reason for
their request.
39 In discussing the incarceration of Satan in Revelation 20, most amillennialists do not
even mention—much less comment on—the implications of Luke 8:31 for an accurate
understanding of the abyss (e.g., Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism; Venema, e
Promise of the Future; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future; Storms, Kingdom Come).
40 Craig A. Blaising, “Premillennialism,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond,
217–18.
41 Ibid., 218. According to Blaising, “is does not mean that evil was non-existent, but
that these locusts themselves played no role prior to their release.”
42 Webb, “Revelation 20,” 20–21. In a similar way, in Rev 11:7 the satanically inspired
beast must rst “come up out of the abyss” (to; ajnabai:non ejk th:V ajbuvssou) before
he is able to make war with the two witnesses on earth (cf., Rev 17:8, where the beast
“is about to come up out of the abyss [ajnabaivnein ejk th:V abuvssou] and go to
destruction”). As Webb explains, the designation “those who dwell on the earth” (tou;V
katoikou:ntaV ejpi; th:V gh:V) is a key phrase for understanding the cosmology of
Revelation (3:10; 6:10; 8:13; 11:10; 13:8, 14; 17:2, 8): “e whole point of locking
someone (an angel or the Devil) in the abyss … is so that they cannot bring any harm
against those who dwell on the earth. e abyss is not simply a metaphorical
‘reduction in in uence’ as amillennialists suggest. us an amillennial perspective
breaks down when the abyss is considered more broadly throughout the book of
Revelation. Also, con nement in the abyss stands in direct contrast to the outcome of
Satan being thrown out of heaven to the earth. [John] declares Satan’s arrival upon the
earth as one of the three great ‘woes’ to its inhabitants: ‘woe, woe, woe, to those who
dwell on the earth (tou;V katoikou:ntaV ejpi; th:V gh:V)’ (8:13; cf. 12:12–13). Within
Revelation, demonic con nement in the abyss brings safety to the earthdwellers. In
contrast, demonic beings thrown down to the earth (from heaven) or released to go up
to the earth (from the abyss) brings harm to the earthdwellers” (“Revelation 20,” 20–
21).
43 Charles E. Powell, “Progression Versus Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1–6,” BSac 163,
no. 649 (Jan 2006): 99.
44 Some amillennialists dispute the absolute nature of Satan’s con nement by appealing to
Jude 6. According to this argument, in the same way that demons are still actively
involved on earth even though they are “kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the
judgment of the great day” according to Jude 6 (cf. 2 Pet 2:4), so Satan is
simultaneously bound in the abyss (Rev 20:1–3) and yet still very active on earth
(Beale, e Book of Revelation, 990; Stanely J. Grenz, e Millennial Maze: Sorting Out
Evangelical Options [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992], 162; Strimple,
 “Amillennialism,” 124). As Stanley Grenz writes, “Just as the demons in chains are not
totally powerless, but restricted in activity, so also the binding of Satan entails
restriction rather than total incapacitation” (e Millennial Maze, 162). e
premillennial response to this argument depends on the identity of the fallen angels in
Jude 6. Some interpreters see these demons as the “sons of God” in Gen 6:2 who “took
wives for themselves” and were therefore imprisoned by God as described in Jude 6. If
so, this presents no support for the amillennial argument, because Jude 6 would simply
be saying that only some of the fallen angels are in eternal bonds, not all of them, and
therefore demonic activity in the present age could simply be attributed to those fallen
angels who are not con ned. Other interpreters see Jude 6 as a reference to the original
fall of the angels who defected with Satan. If this view is correct, then Jude 6 cannot
refer to con nement in the abyss, because the con nement of Jude 6 is permanent
(“kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day”), which
would imply that every demon is permanently con ned in the abyss until the nal
judgment. But Luke 8:31 and Rev 9:13 make it clear that not all demons are
permanently con ned to the abyss. Jude 6 and 2 Pet 2:4, therefore, present no support
for this amillennial argument.
45 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 987; cf. Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 237;
Menn, Biblical Eschatology, 357.
46 e amillennial reluctance to see the abyss as a prison is re ected not only in Beale’s
description of “prison” in verse 7 as “a gurative word,” but also in his explanation of
the seal in Rev 20:3. According to Beale, rather than connoting an absolute
incarceration, the sealing of the abyss could just as easily convey the general idea of
“authority over,” in keeping with its primary meaning in Dan 6:17 and Matt 27:66 (e
Book of Revelation, 985–86). But in contrast to Beale’s claim, the act of sealing in these
two verses was indeed designed to ensure absolute incarceration, namely by making
sure that Daniel did not escape the lion’s den (Dan 6:17) and that Jesus’ body did not
leave the tomb (Matt 27:66). As Grant Osborne writes, “is intensi es the idea of
‘locking’ the abyss and connotes an absolutely secure situation, guaranteed by
sovereign authority. Satan is completely bound in the abyss and cannot escape” (Grant
R. Osborne, Revelation, ECNT [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002], 701).
47 In arguing that Satan’s present-day activities are compatible with his present-day
imprisonment in Revelation 20, Hendriksen uses the analogy that a dog “bound with a
long and heavy chain can do great damage within the circle of his imprisonment”
(More an Conquerors, 190; cf. Hamstra, “An Idealist View of Revelation,” 120). What
this illustration seems to ignore is that Satan’s “circle of imprisonment” is identi ed in
verse 3 as the abyss. If Satan is free to roam and do damage only in the abyss, then he is
indeed cut off from activity on the earth. In a similar way, William Cox affirms that
Satan still prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, because “the
chain with which he is bound is a long one, allowing him much freedom of
movement” (Amillennialism Today, 139). And Oscar Cullman describes Satan as being
“bound as to a rope, which can be more or less lengthened” (Oscar Cullman, Christ
and Time: e Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History, trans. Floyd V.
 Filson [Philadelphia: e Westminster Press, 1949], 198). But rather than seeing the
chain as the means by which Satan is bound (i.e., tied up), Cox and Cullman write as if
the imagery were one of Satan on a leash. e length of the chain is not only unstated
but irrelevant, for the imagery is one of Satan being bound by it and then locked and
sealed in an escape-proof prison. Where in the language of Rev 20:1–3 is there any
indication that Satan has “much freedom of movement”?
48 Storms, Kingdom Come, 439–41; Cox, Amillennialism Today, 62; Strimple,
“Amillennialism,” 123; Morris, Revelation, 229; Hendriksen, More an Conquerors,
190; James A. Hughes, “Revelation 20:4–6 and the Question of the Millennium,” WTJ
35, no. 3 (Spring 1973): 281; Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith, 132; Beale, e
Book of Revelation, 985; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 318–19.
49 Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 190; also see Venema, e Promise of the Future,
319.
50 Storms, Kingdom Come, 439. According to Storms, “e premillennial interpretation
errs in that it has attempted to universalize what John explicitly restricts.”
51 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 239. e irony here is that Riddlebarger
seems to imply that Satan is more dangerous while sealed in the abyss than when he is
not.
52 Powell, “Progression Versus Recapitulation,” 98.
53 Ibid. In addition, the use of a purpose clause does not preclude the possibility that the
stated action was taken with additional purposes in mind, even though those purposes
are not speci cally stated in the passage itself. For example, most amillennialists link
the binding of Satan with Christ’s victory over Satan at the cross (Col 2:15; Heb 2:14–
15; 1 John 3:8), and yet none of them would argue that the only purpose of Christ’s
work of redemption was to keep Satan from deceiving the nations during the thousand
years.
54 is illustration is taken from Powell, “Progression Versus Recapitulation,” 98.
55 e verb tuflovw (“has blinded”) means “to blind” or “to deprive of sight” (BDAG,
1021), and here in 2 Cor 4:4 it refers to spiritual blindness, just as in its other two uses
in the New Testament (John 12:40; 1 John 2:11).
56 Cf. Matt 13:19; 1 Tim 4:1–2. Paul says in 2 Tim 2:26 that these unbelievers are in need
of repentance leading to knowledge of the truth so they can come to their senses and
escape this deceptive satanic snare. As Fee observes, this metaphor “emphasizes the
deceitful nature of the false teaching, which here … is depicted as ultimately demonic”
(Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, NIBC [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers,
1988], 266; also see George W. Knight, e Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the
Greek Text, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1992], 425–26; William D.
Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC vol. 46 [Nashville: omas Nelson Publishers, 2000],
537–39).
57 Jeffrey L. Townsend, “Is the Present Age the Millennium?,” BSac 140, no. 559 (July
1983): 217.
58 e difficulty presented by these verses from Revelation is not alleviated by the
amillennial view that they describe the present age (rather than the seven-year
 tribulation period, as some premillennialists believe), for this would mean that Satan is
actively deceiving the nations throughout the present age, the very thing the
amillennialist denies according to his interpretation of Rev 20:1–3.
59 Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 186–87; emphasis added. Also see Venema, e
Promise of the Future, 319, and Storms, Kingdom Come, 440.
60 Strimple, “An Amillennial Response,” 273; Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 188–
90; Morris, Revelation, 279; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 228–29; Riddlebarger,
A Case for Amillennialism, 238; Garlington, “Reigning with Christ,” 72; Storms,
Kingdom Come, 439–40; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 988; Menn, Biblical Eschatology,
290.
61 Garlington, “Reigning with Christ,” 72; Cox, Amillennialism Today, 62; Hoekema, e
Bible and the Future, 228–29; Hamstra, “An Idealist View of Revelation,” 120;
Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 188–90; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 319;
Storms, Kingdom Come, 442; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 988–89; Hamilton, e
Basis of Millennial Faith, 130; Davis, e High King of Heaven, 469; Menn, Biblical
Eschatology, 290. As Anthony Hoekema summarizes, “e binding of Satan during the
gospel age means that, rst, he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel, and second, he
cannot gather all the enemies of Christ together to attack the church” (e Bible and
the Future, 228). For some amillennialists (a) and (b) are inextricably linked, for they
say it is precisely because Satan is unable to destroy the church as a missionary
institution that the gospel is now able to go forth to the nations (e.g., Garlington,
“Reigning with Christ,” 72; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 229).
62 Strimple, “An Amillennial Response,” 273.
63 Ibid.
64 Storms, Kingdom Come, 440; emphasis original.
65 Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 188.
66 Hamstra, “An Idealist View of Revelation,” 120.
67 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 229.
68 Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 123–24; also see Garlington, “Reigning with Christ,” 72;
Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith, 131; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 228–
29; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 318–19.
69 Storms, Kingdom Come, 442; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 238; Vern S.
Poythress, e Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2000), 181; R. Fowler White, “On the
Hermeneutics and Interpretation of Rev 20:1–3: A Preconsummationist Perspective,”
JETS 42, no. 1 (March 1999): 65.
70 Richard A. Ostella, “e Signi cance of Deception in Revelation 20:3,” WTJ 37, no. 2
(Winter 1975): 237–38. As Ostella explains, this is clear from John’s temporal use of e[ti
with a negative particle (also see BDAG, 400).
71 It is a deception more directly identi ed with his deceptive activities prior to the
thousand years than with what happens aer his release (Ostella, “e Signi cance of
Deception,” 238). But amillennialists take just the opposite approach: To defend their
understanding of this deception, they typically ignore the satanic deception which
 takes place prior to the thousand years and focus instead on the deception which takes
place in Rev 20:7–8.
72 Sullivan, “Premillennialism and an Exegesis of Revelation 20,” 21–22; accessed on July
20, 2014, http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Sullivan-PremillennialismAndA.pdf. As
Sullivan asks, “If we say God prevented him from doing it then what is the difference
between God’s prevention of the nal war of all times before the cross and the so-
called binding during this age?” (21). Mathewson argues that even if the deception in
Rev 20:1–3 is restricted to opposing the saints and mounting an all-out war (Rev 20:8)
—as amillennialists claim—this would be no different from the deception referred to
in Rev 12:9, which takes place prior to the Second Coming. According to Mathewson,
“It is not clear that the deceiving in both cases is different; both have the express
purpose of turning the nations from God to follow the dragon (see 13:2, 4, 7, 8, 14).
e nal deception of the nations in order to get them to follow the dragon ends, then,
with an assault on the people of God (20:7–10). is is precisely the activity which is
denied Satan for one thousand years in 20:1–3” (Dave Mathewson, “A Reexamination
of the Millennium in Rev 20:1–6: Consummation and Recapitulation,” JETS 44, no. 2
[June 2001]: 245).
73 According to Powell, Beale (e Book of Revelation, 983–90) “seems to interpret the
deception in terms of its degree of success and failure, not in terms of its attempt”
(“Progression Versus Recapitulation,” 106). As Powell explains: “While admitting that
Satan will ultimately fail in his objective of destroying the covenant 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, while the purpose clause makes it clear that he will
not have any success, not simply limited success” (emphasis original).
74 An additional problem arises when one considers the question of whether Satan is
currently able to keep the nations in darkness by preventing the spread of the gospel.
Strimple and other amillennialists claim that Satan is no longer successful in this
endeavor because he is bound during the present age (Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 123–
24), but the number of unreached people (and even nations) in the world would argue
otherwise. In fact, as Powell explains, deception and persecution of the church have
been widespread throughout the entirety of the present age: “Persecution was initiated
under the reigns of Nero, Domitian, and Diocletian, the last of which was throughout
the Roman Empire. e bastions of Christianity in Asia Minor and North Africa in the
rst six centuries have all been under Muslim control for the past several centuries.
ree quarters of the earth’s population are still Islamic, Buddhist, or Hindu.
Communism in the twentieth century threatened to stamp out Christianity. All this
suggests that in the present age Satan is ‘deceiving the nations’ and is having more
success than failure” (“Progression Versus Recapitulation,” 106–7).
75 Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 188; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 228;
Venema, e Promise of the Future, 321–23; Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 93;
 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 471; Cox, Amillennialism Today, 65, 107, 136–37;
Hamstra, “An Idealist View of Revelation,” 120.
76 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 321.
77 Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 95.
78 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 323; also see Cox, Amillennialism Today, 65, 107,
136–37; Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 93; Page, “Revelation 20 and Pauline
Eschatology,” 31–33.
79 For some amillennialists, consulting these cross-references actually becomes a
substitute for exegeting Rev 20:1–3 itself, e.g., Cox, who writes: “Since [Rev 20] itself
gives no explanation of John’s meaning, its meaning must be garnered elsewhere in the
Bible” (Amillennialism Today, 65).
80 Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith, 129; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 228–
29; Arthur H. Lewis, e Dark Side of the Millennium: e Problem of Evil in Revelation
20:1–10 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 52; Cox, Amillennialism Today, 59–60;
Anthony A. Hoekema, “Amillennialism,” in e Meaning of the Millennium: Four
Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 162–63;
Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 94; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 321;
Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 122; Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 287; Beale, e Book of
Revelation, 985; Poythress, e Returning King, 181; Garlington, “Reigning with
Christ,” 69–70; Hamstra, “An Idealist View of Revelation,” 120; Davis, e High King of
Heaven, 471; Menn, Biblical Eschatology, 288; Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the
Book of Revelation, NTC (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 534.
81 Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 122; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 229; Johnson,
Triumph of the Lamb, 287; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 321; Menn, Biblical
Eschatology, 288.
82 A few amillennialists avoid this dilemma by claiming that Christ’s work of binding
began earlier when the Lord triumphed over him by resisting his temptations in the
wilderness back in Luke 4:1–13//Matt 4:1–11 (Garlington, “Reigning with Christ,” 91;
Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 229; Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith, 129;
Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 187). But Luke 4 speci cally indicates that Satan
le the temptation scene defeated but unbound by describing the devil as departing
from Jesus “until an opportune time” (Luke 4:13) (Townsend, “Is the Present Age the
Millennium?,” 217). In addition, there is no indication in Revelation 20 that the
binding and incarceration of Satan is something that took place progressively, over the
course of nearly two years.
83 Storms, Kingdom Come, 439–41; Cox, Amillennialism Today, 62; Strimple,
“Amillennialism,” 123; Morris, Revelation, 229; Hendriksen, More an Conquerors,
190; Hughes, “Revelation 20:4–6 and the Question of the Millennium,” 281; Hamilton,
e Basis of Millennial Faith, 132; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 985; Venema, e
Promise of the Future, 318–19.
84 Alexander Balmain Bruce, “e Synoptic Gospels,” in e Expositor’s Greek Testament,
vol. 1, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1974), 188.
85 John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Philadelphia: American
Baptist Publication Society, 1886), 270; Louis A. Barbieri, “Matthew,” in e Bible
Knowledge Commentary, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor
Books, 1983), 46; Craig Blomberg, Matthew, NAC vol. 23 (Nashville: Broadman Press,
1992), 203. As Broadus writes, “Jesus was taking away from Satan a part of his property
in delivering the demoniac, and this could not be unless he were at variance with
Satan, and strong enough to bind him” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 270).
86 As Louis Barbieri writes, “By driving out demons, He was proving He was greater than
Satan. He was able to go into Satan’s realm (the strong man’s house), the demonic
world, and come away with the spoils of the victory (12:29). Since He could do this, He
was able to institute the kingdom of God among them (v. 28). If He were driving out
demons by Satan’s power, He certainly could not be offering the people God’s kingdom.
at would be contradictory. e fact that He was coming to establish the kingdom
clearly showed that He worked by the power of the Spirit of God, not by Satan’s power”
(“Matthew,” 46).
87 George Eldon Ladd, “An Historic Premillennial Response,” in e Meaning of the
Millennium, 189.
88 Powell, “Progression Versus Recapitulation,” 100.
89 As Robert Gromacki explains, the episode in Matthew 12 involved one demon being
cast out of one person: “If Satan had been bound completely at that event, then all
demon possessed individuals should have been delivered simultaneously. However,
many remained demon possessed in the Gospel period, the time of apostolic ministry,
and in our present day. Christ used that analogy to justify his miraculous action upon
one man at one point of time” (Robert Gromacki, “Revelation 20: A Premillennial
Analysis,” 14; accessed on July 20, 2014, http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Gromacki-
Revelation20APremille.pdf).
90 Harry R. Boer, “What About the Millennium?” RefJ 25, no. 1 (Jan 1975): 29.
91 As Townsend writes, “When [Matt 12:29] is compared with the absolute terms used of
Satan’s imprisonment in the abyss, it becomes apparent that any restriction on Satan in
the Gospels is not to be equated with his binding in Revelation” (“Is the Present Age
the Millennium?,” 217).
92 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 122; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 229;
Lewis, e Dark Side of the Millennium, 52; Cox, Amillennialism Today, 61; Waldron,
e End Times Made Simple, 94; Hoekema, “Amillennialism,” 163; Venema, e
Promise of the Future, 322; Hamstra, “An Idealist View of Revelation,” 120; Beale, e
Book of Revelation, 985; Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 187; Garlington,
“Reigning with Christ,” 70; Davis, e High King of Heaven, 471; Kistemaker,
Revelation, 534.
93 For a survey of these views and others, see David E. Garland, Luke, ECNT, vol. 3
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2011), 428–29; Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–
24:53, ECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996), 1006–7; Alfred Plummer, e
Gospel According to S. Luke, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 277–78; Joel B.
Green, e Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1997), 417–
 19; John Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, WBC, vol. 35B (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 562–
64; Norman Crawford, Luke, What the Bible Teaches, vol. 7 (Kilmarnock, Scotland:
John Ritchie Ltd., 1989), 185–86; Leon Morris, Luke, TNTC, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1999), 202; William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel
According to Luke, NTC (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1978), 580–81; Robert H. Stein,
Luke, NAC vol. 24 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 309–10.
94 is appears to be the most likely view. In this way, the success of the seventy was
viewed by Jesus as “a symbol and earnest” of the complete and future overthrow of
Satan (Plummer, e Gospel According to S. Luke, 278). As Green notes, “e decisive
fall of Satan is anticipated in the future, but it is already becoming manifest through
the mission of Jesus and, by extension, through the ministry of his envoys” (e Gospel
of Luke, 419).
95 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 229; Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 94;
Venema, e Promise of the Future, 322; Hamstra, “An Idealist View of Revelation,”
120; Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 187; Garlington, “Reigning with Christ,” 70;
Davis, e High King of Heaven, 471.
96 Hamstra, “An Idealist View of Revelation,” 120.
97 According to Michael Vlach, the cosmic war between God and Satan includes several
battles which progressively lead to the devil’s ultimate defeat: (1) Satan is judged and
cast down from heaven before the fall of man (Isa 14:12–15; Ezek 28:11–19); (2) Jesus
demonstrates His power over Satan’s realm by casting out demons (Matt 12:28); (3)
Jesus is victorious over Satan at the cross (Col 2:15); (4) Satan is thrown down to the
earth for a short time before the Second Coming (Rev 12); (5) Satan is sealed in the
abyss for one thousand years at the Second Coming (Rev 20:1–3); and (6) Satan is
thrown into the lake of re forever aer the millennial reign of Christ (Rev 20:7–10)
(Michael J. Vlach, “e Kingdom of God and the Millennium,” MSJ 23, no. 2 [Fall
2012]: 248–49). As Vlach explains, “ese events above are separate but interrelated
events in the cosmic war” (249).
98 In fact, unlike Matt 12:29—which at least refers to Satan being bound in some manner
—there are no obvious similarities whatsoever between Luke 10:18 and Rev 20:1–3.
Furthermore, Luke 10:18 presumably pictures Satan falling from heaven to earth,
whereas Satan is sealed in the abyss in Rev 20:1–3 (Webb, “Revelation 20,” 20).
99 Cited by Lewis, e Dark Side of the Millennium, 52; Hoekema, e Bible and the
Future, 229; Cox, Amillennialism Today, 61; Hoekema, “Amillennialism,” 163; Waldron,
e End Times Made Simple, 94; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 322–23; Strimple,
“Amillennialism,” 122; Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith, 132; Beale, e Book of
Revelation, 985; Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 188; Poythress, e Returning
King, 181; Garlington, “Reigning with Christ,” 70; Davis, e High King of Heaven,
471–72; Menn, Biblical Eschatology, 288. In arguing for the connection between John
12:31–32 and Rev 20:1–3, amillennialists point out that the verb “cast out” (ejkbavllw)
in John 12:31–32 is from the same root as the verb “threw” (bavllw) in Rev 20:1–3
(Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 229; Garlington, “Reigning with Christ,” 70;
Venema, e Promise of the Future, 323; Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 122; Menn,
 Biblical Eschatology, 288). But the mere use of similar words is insufficient to equate
the events described in these two passages. In addition, as used in their own contexts,
the two words are less similar than amillennialists seem to imply. John 12:31 pictures
Satan being “cast out” [ejkblhqhvsetai] in some way, whereas Rev 20:3 pictures him
being “cast … into [e[balen … eijV] the abyss.” e difference between being “cast out”
and “cast into” does not preclude the possibility that the two passages are describing
the same event from different perspectives, but it should silence the claim that the
equation can be made on the basis of the use of similar verbs.
100 Cited by Cox, Amillennialism Today, 61; Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 95;
Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 122; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 238; Page,
“Revelation 20 and Pauline Eschatology,” 33; Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith,
132; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 985; Poythress, e Returning King, 181.
101 Cited by Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 286; Lewis, e Dark Side of the
Millennium, 52; Cox, Amillennialism Today, 61; Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 122–23;
Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith, 132–33; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 985.
102 Cited by Cox, Amillennialism Today, 61; Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 95;
Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 123.
103 As Robert omas asks, “What restrictions currently placed on him will be removed at
the end of this age? No credible answer to this question has ever been advanced”
(Robert L. omas, Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary [Chicago: Moody
Press, 1995], 404).
104 George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1972), 263.
105 Sullivan, “Premillennialism,” 21.
106 It will be demonstrated in chapter 14 that Revelation 12:7–11 and Revelation 20:1–3 do
not describe the same casting down of Satan.
107 Robert L. Saucy, e Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: e Interface Between
Dispensational and Non-Dispensational eology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 1993), 276.
 Chapter 12

e Nature of the First

Resurrection

INTRODUCTION

One of the most signi cant issues in Revelation 20 involves the nature of
the “ rst resurrection” in verses 4–6. is resurrection has been labeled one
of the most hotly disputed issues in all of Scripture1 and “the focal point of
the eschatological hostilities which divide premillennialists from
amillennialists.”2 Because this resurrection is described as “ rst”—and
because John depicts the rest of the dead coming to life aer the thousand
years (v. 5a)—premillennialists believe Revelation 20 foresees two physical
resurrections separated by the millennial reign of Christ. ese two
resurrections are oen considered not only a “major exegetical problem for
amillennialism,”3 but also “the linchpin of the premillennial position.”4
In response, amillennialists reject this idea of two physical resurrections
separated by a thousand years, insisting instead that the rst resurrection is
a spiritual resurrection that takes place throughout the present age. More
speci cally, amillennialists interpret the rst resurrection as either (a) the
regeneration of believers at the point of conversion or (b) the entrance of
believers into life in heaven at the point of death. In doing so, amillennialists
argue for a single, physical resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked
when Jesus returns at the end of the age.
 e purpose of this chapter is to reexamine this key passage in the
millennial debate, with a focus on the amillennial interpretation of the rst
resurrection. Aer setting forth the premillennial argument from Revelation
20:4–6, it will carefully evaluate the amillennial view that the rst
resurrection is spiritual in nature. It will then examine the two speci c
amillennial views on the identity of this spiritual resurrection. In the
process, this chapter will demonstrate that the amillennial arguments for a
spiritual resurrection in Revelation 20:4–6 fall short, and therefore that this
passage provides compelling evidence for the eschatology of
premillennialism.

THE PREMILLENNIAL VIEW OF THE FIRST

RESURRECTION
In Revelation 20:4–6, the apostle John continues his description of the
thousand years, focusing on the resurrection and millennial reign of those
who are martyred for their faith in Christ:

en I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given
to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God,
and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had
not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they
came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. e rest of
the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were
completed. is is the rst resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one
who has a part in the rst 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.

e most highly debated part of this passage concerns the meaning of the
phrase “they came to life” (e[zhsan) in verse 45 and the nature of the “ rst
resurrection” (hJ ajnavstasiV hJ prwvth) in verse 5.6 According to
premillennialism, this “ rst resurrection” is the rst of two physical
resurrections in Revelation 20 which are separated by a thousand years. e
 rst is a resurrection of the righteous, the faithful believers who are
martyred during the Tribulation (v. 4), whereas the second is a resurrection
of the wicked, “the rest of the dead” who “did not come to life until the
thousand years were completed” (v. 5). ose raised in the rst resurrection
reign with Christ for a thousand years (v. 4), and those raised in the second
resurrection come before the throne of nal judgment aer the millennium
(vv. 11–15). As premillennialist John Walvoord writes:

e sharp contrast in the passage is between those who are raised at

the beginning of the thousand years and those who are raised at the
end. Both are physical resurrections, but those who are raised at the
beginning of the Millennium, designated as the “ rst resurrection,”
are contrasted to those who “come to life” at the end of the
Millennium, who face judgment according to Revelation 20:11–15.7

As Robert Saucy explains, this contrast between the two physical

resurrections has signi cant implications for the millennial debate:

e mention of two resurrections separated by a period of a

thousand years, along with the reference to the participants in the
rst resurrection as reigning with Christ, clearly points to a
millennial period aer the coming of Christ, when the rst
resurrection occurs.8

In this way, the physical nature of the “ rst resurrection” provides

convincing support for the concept of a millennial kingdom between the
present age and the eternal state and therefore presents a difficult problem
for amillennialism.

e Premillennial Argument
e primary reason the “ rst resurrection” in Revelation 20 must refer to a
physical resurrection concerns the terminology itself. e word
“resurrection” (ajnavstasiV) is used almost exclusively in the New Testament
to refer to “the elimination of the condition of physical death through bodily
resurrection.”9 e word is used 41 times in the New Testament, and in 38
out of its 39 uses outside of Revelation 20, it refers to a physical resurrection.
e lone exception is its metaphorical use in Luke 2:34 where it cannot refer
to bodily resurrection because physical death is absent from the immediate
context.10
is alone does not prove that ajnavstasiV refers to a physical
resurrection in Revelation 20—for it is possible that John is using this word
in a unique way—but it does place a heavy burden of proof on those who say
otherwise. Physical resurrection is clearly the concept that would have
immediately arisen in the minds of John’s original readers upon seeing the
word ajnavstasiV, and therefore, if it refers to anything else in Revelation 20,
this must be obvious from the immediate context.
In contrast, the immediate context con rms that John is indeed
describing a physical resurrection. Because the apostle describes the subjects
of this resurrection as those who were martyred—and follows this with the
statement that “they came to life and reigned” (Rev 20:4)—this strongly
implies that this new life is physical.11 In other words, interpreting the rst
resurrection as a bodily resurrection ts the context in which John sees
those who were killed in the physical realm coming back to life in the
physical realm. As Alva J. McClain notes, “If the people involved were
beheaded physically, and then lived again, common sense would suggest
that they received back the same category of life that had been lost.”12 is
con rms the standard meaning of ajnavstasiV in Revelation 20:5 as a
physical resurrection.
In addition, since the physical resurrection of “the rest of the dead” in
verse 5a is described with the word e[zhsan (“they came to life”), and the
identical form of the same verb e[zhsan (“they came to life”) is used to
describe the resurrection of the saints at the end of verse 4, this resurrection
must also be physical.13 e issue here is not merely the repetition of the
same form of the same verb, but also the way in which these two verbs are
connected. When John writes, in effect, “Some of the dead e[zhsan (v. 4b),
but the rest of the dead did not e[zhsan until later (v. 5a),” he makes it clear
that the verb refers to the same act or experience in both uses. erefore,
whatever happened to one group also happened to the other—if one
resurrection is physical, the other must be physical as well.14
 ese two physical resurrections—believers prior to the thousand years
and unbelievers aerward—could hardly be stated more clearly:

Resurrection: “they came to life [e[zhsan] and reigned with Christ

for a thousand years” (Rev 20:4)
Second “the rest of the dead did not come to life [e[zhsan]
Resurrection: until the thousand years were completed” (Rev
20:5a)

Subsequently, in a vision of events taking place aer the thousand years, the
apostle John describes the resurrection of the wicked unto judgment: “And
the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the
dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them
according to their deeds” (Rev 20:13; emphasis added). is is John’s
description of the rest of the dead coming to life aer the thousand years, a
clear reference to the second of two physical resurrections separated by the
millennial reign of Christ. For this reason, the use of the word ajnavstasiV,
in combination with these other clear indications in the immediate context,
support the premillennial view that the rst resurrection is physical in
nature.

e Amillennial Objection
e most common objection to this view is that the Bible elsewhere teaches
a single, general resurrection in which the righteous and the wicked will be
raised at the same time (Dan 12:2; John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15).15 As Kenneth
Gentry explains:

Why should we believe that the New Testament everywhere teaches a

general, singular resurrection on the last day, only to discover later in
the most difficult book of the Bible that there are actually two
speci c, distantly separated resurrections for different classes of
people?16
 According to amillennialists, because both the righteous and the wicked
will be raised at the same time when Jesus returns, Revelation 20 cannot
teach two physical resurrections separated by a thousand years. As
amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger writes, “Scripture clearly teaches that the
resurrection and judgment of the righteous and unrighteous will occur at
the same time, thus eliminating the possibility of an earthly millennial age to
dawn aer the Lord’s return.”17
In response to this objection, Daniel 12:2, John 5:28–29, and Acts 24:15
do not actually preclude the possibility of two distinct resurrections
separated by a period of time. In fact, all three passages speak of a
resurrection of the righteous and a resurrection of the wicked—and always
in that same order (the same as in Revelation 20)18—and they neither state
nor require that the two resurrections happen simultaneously. ey simply
do not specify one way or the other.19 As Wayne Grudem explains:

All of these verses, in the absence of Revelation 20:5–6, might or

might not be speaking of a single future time of resurrection. But
with the explicit teaching of Revelation 20:5–6 about two
resurrections, these verses must be understood to refer to the future
certainty of a resurrection for each type of person, without
specifying that those resurrections will be separated in time.20

Even John 5:28–29, which speaks of “an hour” in which these two
resurrections will occur, does not require that both resurrections take place
at the same time. John frequently uses the word “hour” (w{ra) in reference to
an extended period of time (John 16:2), sometimes as long as the entire
present age (John 4:21, 23; 1 John 2:18). In fact, this is how he uses the word
“hour” just three verses earlier in John 5:25.21 As Craig Blaising explains, “If
the eschatological hour can be extended over two thousand years, it is not
impossible that a thousand years might transpire between the resurrection
of the just and the resurrection of the unjust.”22
As discussed in chapter 1, sometimes a given biblical prophecy will
predict two or more future events and present them in such a way that it
appears they will occur simultaneously, but later revelation indicates a
signi cant gap of time separating them.23 Oen referred to as “telescoping,”
“prophetic perspective,” or “prophetic foreshortening,” it can be likened to
seeing two mountain peaks off in the distance—initially they appear to be
right next to each other, but a closer look reveals that they are separated by a
valley. For example, there is no clear evidence in the Old Testament alone
that there would be two distinct comings of the Messiah separated by a
signi cant period of time. But once the later revelation of the New
Testament arrives, it becomes clear that what the Old Testament writers
seemed to depict as a single event must now be recognized as involving two
events.
In the same way, when it comes to the future resurrection, what the
earlier writers of Scripture seemed to depict as a single resurrection of both
the righteous and the wicked (Dan 12:2; John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15) must
now be recognized as involving two resurrections, a resurrection of the
righteous and a resurrection of the wicked a thousand years later (Rev 20:1–
15). In other words, while these other passages do not specify the timing of
the two resurrections, in Revelation 20:5 this time element is speci ed—one
thousand years will separate these two physical resurrections. Recognizing
this development in the progress of revelation is the only way to harmonize
all of what Scripture teaches on the subject of the future resurrection.24

THE AMILLENNIAL VIEW OF THE FIRST RESURRECTION

Amillennialists reject the idea of two physical resurrections separated by a
thousand years, claiming instead that the “ rst resurrection” is a spiritual
resurrection that takes place throughout the present age, to be followed by a
physical resurrection at the end of this age. More speci cally, amillennialists
interpret the rst resurrection as either (a) the regeneration of believers at
the point of conversion or (b) the entrance of believers into life in heaven at
the point of death. But before these two speci c views can be evaluated, the
amillennial argument for the spiritual nature of the rst resurrection in
general must be considered.

e Case for a Spiritual Resurrection

In making the case for the spiritual nature of the rst resurrection, most
amillennialists appeal to an argument rst articulated by Meredith G. Kline
in 197525 and subsequently adopted and developed by several leading
proponents of amillennialism.26 It now appears to be the primary argument
for the spiritual nature of the rst resurrection in Revelation 20, but most
premillennialists have largely ignored it in their critiques of the amillennial
view.27

e Amillennial Argument
As amillennialists observe, even though the word “resurrection”
(ajnavstasiV) almost always refers to physical resurrection elsewhere in the
New Testament, it occurs only here in the Apocalypse, and Revelation 20:5–
6 is the only place in Scripture where ajnavstasiV is modi ed by the ordinal
“ rst” (prw:toV).28 Amillennialists consider the uniqueness of this
expression “ rst resurrection”—rather than simply the use of “resurrection”
itself—to be the decisive factor in determining the intended meaning of
John’s designation.29
According to amillennialists, by calling it the “ rst” resurrection, the
apostle was not simply designating it the rst in a series of resurrections of
the same kind—he was indicating that this resurrection was of a different
quality than the resurrection that follows. In other words, the modi er “ rst”
indicates a qualitative difference between two resurrections rather than
merely establishing a numerical sequence between two events.30 According
to this view, the qualitative difference is that the “ rst” resurrection is
spiritual whereas the second resurrection is physical.
To justify this distinction, amillennialists point to the contrast between
the rst and second deaths in Revelation 20. e rst death of believers is
physical/temporal and therefore different in nature from the second death of
unbelievers, which is spiritual/eternal (Rev 20:10, 14–15). As G. K. Beale
reasons, “If there are thus two different kinds of deaths, it is plausible that
the corresponding resurrections would also differ. e resurrection of
believers is spiritual, whereas the resurrection of unbelievers is physical.”31
In this way, the passage is said to re ect the following chiastic arrangement:
Figure 1. Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1005.

According to amillennialist Sam Storms, this double binary pattern re ects a

beautiful irony in John’s language: e believer dies physically but
experiences spiritual resurrection, whereas the unbeliever is resurrected
physically but experiences spiritual death.32
e key to understanding this expression “ rst resurrection” is said to be
found in those New Testament passages which contain a similar antithesis
between “ rst/old” and “second/new” (Rev 21:1; 1 Cor 15:22, 42–49; Heb
8:6–10:9). According to amillennialists, in these passages the modi er
prw:toV designates not that which is rst in a sequence, but rather that which
pertains to the present world order, in contrast to that which pertains to the
world to come. In Revelation 21:1, for example, the modi er “ rst/old”
refers to those pre-consummate and incomplete elements belonging to the
present, sin-cursed creation order, whereas the modi er ”second/new” refers
to those consummate and complete elements belonging to the eternal
state.33 In Revelation 21:1, then, the adjective “ rst”

does not merely mark the present world as rst in a series of worlds
and certainly not as rst in a series of worlds of the same kind. On
the contrary, it characterizes this world as different in kind from the
“new” world. It signi es that the present world stands in contrast to
the new world order of the consummation which will abide
forever.34

is antithesis is said to be con rmed later in Revelation 21, where physical
death in the present age in verse 4 is considered part of the “ rst things,” and
the “second death” in the lake of re in verse 8 takes place in the age to
come.35
According to amillennialists, then, whatever is “ rst” in the Book of
Revelation pertains to the present world and whatever is “second” or “new”
pertains to the world to come.36 For this reason, because the second
resurrection is physical and pertains to the eternal order of the age to come,
the rst resurrection must be spiritual and pertain to the temporary order of
the present age.37 erefore, the rst resurrection must refer to a spiritual
resurrection which takes place during the present age rather than a physical
resurrection in the age to come.38
is same distinction is also seen in the antithesis between the “ rst
man” (Adam) and the “second man” (Jesus) in 1 Corinthians 15 and the
“old/ rst covenant” vs. “new/second covenant” in Hebrews 8–10.39 As Beale
observes:

e rst Adam had a perishable body and brought death, whereas

the last Adam had an imperishable and glorious body and brought
eternal life. e rst covenant was temporary and led to death (e.g.,
Heb. 8:13), while the second was eternal and led to life.40

erefore, in none of these passages—Revelation 21, 1 Corinthians 15, or

Hebrews 8–10—“does ‘ rst’ (prw:toV) function as an ordinal in a counting of
things that are identical in kind.”41 Amillennialists believe that this supports
the view that the “ rst resurrection” of Revelation 20 must be different in
kind from the second resurrection (which is physical) and therefore that it
must be spiritual in nature.

e Premillennial Response
In response, there are ve signi cant problems with this argument. e
initial difficulty with this view of the “ rst resurrection” is that the operative
term in this designation is not the adjective “ rst” but rather the noun
“resurrection.”42 As previously noted, the noun ajnavstasiV is a well-attested
technical term that almost always refers to bodily resurrection in the New
Testament. In the very rare instances where this word means anything else,
this is instantly clear from the immediate context (e.g., Luke 2:34). In
addition, the chronological use of the adjective prw:toV—in which it refers
to the rst in a sequence—is extremely common in the New Testament, and
especially in the Apocalypse.43 is, in combination with the clear
contextual indicators of two physical resurrections in Revelation 20 (see
discussion above), identi es the most obvious meaning of the “ rst
resurrection” as the rst in a sequence of two bodily resurrections. Put more
simply, prw:toV means “ rst” and ajnavstasiV means “resurrection.”
is does not mean that the two physical resurrections in Revelation 20
are identical in kind—for the rst is “a resurrection of life” (John 5:29a)
while the second is “a resurrection of judgment” (John 5:29b)—but it does
mean that both are actual resurrections. is illustrates why the appeal to
Revelation 21, 1 Corinthians 15, and Hebrews 8–10 actually undermines the
case for a spiritual resurrection in Revelation 20. ere is a qualitative
distinction in Revelation 21 between the “ rst” heaven and earth and the
“new” heaven and earth, but both are physical creations; there is a qualitative
distinction in 1 Corinthians 15 between the “ rst man” (Adam) and the
“second man” (Jesus), but both are actual men; and there is a qualitative
distinction in Hebrews 8–10 between the “ rst” covenant and the “second”
covenant, but both are actual covenants.44 In contrast, the amillennialist
emphasizes the qualitative distinction between the two resurrections in
Revelation 20 in such a way that the “ rst resurrection” is no longer an actual
resurrection, at least not in terms of what the word ajnavstasiV means in the
New Testament.
Secondly, if the “ rst resurrection” does not consist of a physical
resurrection, then Revelation 20 contains no explicit mention of the future
resurrection as the consummation of the believer’s hope.45 As J. Ramsey
Michaels argues:

It would be strange indeed if a work emphasizing so strongly at the

outset the resurrection of Jesus (1:5, 18), and with such a pervasive
concern to offer consolation to Christians facing persecution and
martyrdom, were to overlook the very heart of the church’s
eschatological expectation.46
Although some assert that the future resurrection of believers is described in
Revelation 20:11–15, this passage describes only the resurrection of
judgment which awaits unbelievers.47
e third difficulty with this argument relates to the perspicuity of
Scripture. Simply stated, it is difficult to imagine that any interpreter would
have ever taken this approach to the “ rst resurrection” prior to its discovery
in the second half of the 20th century.48 How could even the most diligent of
Bible students be expected to connect all the dots necessary to arrive at this
conclusion? Why would the apostle John use such obscure language,
demanding such a convoluted interpretive process? How could John be sure
his readers would identify this double binary pattern, much less think to
consult these other three passages, to determine the meaning of the “ rst
resurrection”? And why would the fact that “ rst” never modi es
“resurrection” outside of Revelation 20 send his readers on this complicated
interpretive journey in the rst place?49 Isn’t it more likely that “ rst
resurrection” simply means “ rst resurrection”? As Harold Hoehner
observes, “e complexity of this view makes it suspect.”50
Fourthly, the technical meaning ascribed to the adjective prw:toV is
highly questionable. Apart from the fact that this use of the adjective has
gone almost completely unnoticed by the major lexicons,51 it does not
appear to be demanded by its use in 1 Corinthians 15, Hebrews 8–10, or
Revelation 21. In each of these passages, the sequential use of prw:toV—in
reference to the rst of two Adams, the rst of two covenants, and the rst of
two heavens/earths—is sufficient to communicate the intended meaning of
the biblical writers. Even though the rst Adam, rst covenant, and rst
creation all possess other qualities in addition to being rst in a sequence—
even some qualities common to all three—this does not mean that these
additional qualities are inherent in the meaning of the adjective itself.52 e
amillennial argument uses a questionable meaning of the adjective “ rst” to
reinterpret the well-attested meaning of “resurrection” and thereby ascribes
to ajnavstasiV a meaning in Revelation 20 which it possesses nowhere else in
the New Testament.53
Fihly, and most importantly, even if the amillennial view of prw:toV is
granted for the sake of argument, an insurmountable problem arises because
of the de nitions given to prw:toV and ajnavstasiV. To review, in light of the
perceived antithesis between “ rst/old” and “second/new,” amillennialists
insist that prw:toV in Revelation 20 means “to belong to the present state of
affairs which is passing away.”54 As the qualitative and polar opposite of
“new,”55 prw:toV is said to describe that which is merely provisional,
transient, and temporary, in contrast to what is consummate, nal, and
enduring.56 In other words, whatever is “ rst” is antithetical to
permanence57 and will eventually be superseded and replaced by what is
“new” when it passes away.58 For this reason, amillennialists believe the
adjective prw:toV “is used to designate elements that belong … to the
present, sin-cursed creation order, in contrast to the new heaven and new
earth.”59 As the diametrical opposite of that which characterizes eternity and
resurrection life,60 “Whatever is rst does not participate in the quality of
nality and permanence which is distinctive of the age to come.”61
e difficultly arises when the amillennialist takes this de nition of
prw:toV and applies it to ajnavstasiV in Revelation 20 as a reference to a
spiritual resurrection. For those amillennialists who believe that the “ rst
resurrection” refers to regeneration,62 the contradiction is obvious. In what
way does the believer’s regeneration belong to the present state of affairs
which is passing away? How can the new life received at conversion be
described as provisional, transient, and temporary, in contrast to what
endures? How can the new birth be considered the qualitative and polar
opposite of the future resurrection? Is the believer’s regeneration antithetical
to permanence? Will the new life received at conversion pass away and be
replaced by his bodily resurrection? Can it really be said that the spiritual
birth of believers belongs to the present, sin-cursed creation and therefore
that the spiritual life of regeneration does not participate in the age to come?
63 As Michaels observes:

e point of the few New Testament passages that speak of

Christians as already in some sense resurrected (e.g., Rom. 6:4, 11;
Eph. 2:5ff; Col. 3:1ff.) is that, to the extent that this resurrection is a
present reality, the believer is set free from the transitory present
world and ushered into the age to come.64
 For those amillennialists who believe that the “ rst resurrection” refers
to the believer being ushered into the presence of Christ at the point of
death,65 the dilemma is similar. In what sense does the believer’s entrance
into the blessings of heaven belong to the present state of affairs which is
passing away? How can being ushered into the presence of Christ be
described as transitory or diametrically opposed to the future resurrection?
66 How can a “resurrection to heavenly glories”67—including the blessings it

brings to those who are resurrected—be considered part of the present, sin-
cursed creation order?68 As Michaels explains:

e rst resurrection as resurrection can hardly be described as

temporary or transitory. It does not “pass away,” like death or the sea
or the old heaven and earth. e Christian who dies … begins to
participate then and there in the blessings of the age to come. His
death as death is indeed transitory, but his death as resurrection …
belongs to the new age. Is that not the whole point in referring to it
as a resurrection?69

For these ve reasons, even though the amillennial argument is certainly

sophisticated, it fails to provide any convincing evidence that the “ rst
resurrection” in Revelation 20 is spiritual in nature.

Amillennial Views of the First Resurrection

Although amillennialists all agree that the rst resurrection is spiritual in
nature, they disagree regarding the speci c kind of spiritual resurrection
portrayed in Revelation 20. Some amillennialists interpret the rst
resurrection as the regeneration of believers at the point of conversion, while
others view it as the entrance of believers into life in heaven at the point of
death. Both of these amillennial views must be considered.

View 1: e Regeneration of the Believer

e rst amillennial view is that the rst resurrection of Revelation 20 refers
to the regeneration of believers at the point of conversion.70 is spiritual
resurrection is said to take place throughout the current age as those who
were previously dead in their sins are made alive in Christ and live to reign
with Him in the present millennial kingdom.71 As William Cox writes, “We
believe entrance to the on-going millennium is gained solely through the
new birth, and that John refers to this as the rst resurrection.”72 is view is
common among amillennialists. Riddlebarger identi es the rst
73
resurrection as “the believers’ regeneration;” Hamstra calls it “the rst
resurrection of regeneration;”74 Hamilton refers to it as “the new birth of the
believer;”75 Page describes it as “initiation into the Christian life in the
present age;”76 and Shepherd simply labels it “conversion.”77
To support this view, amillennialists note that the new birth is depicted
throughout the New Testament as a rising from the dead in the spiritual
realm (Mark 12:26–27; John 5:25–29; 11:25; Rom 6:4–6; 8:10–11; Eph 2:1–7;
Col 2:12–13; 3:1; 1 John 3:14; 5:11–13).78 ose regenerated by the Holy
Spirit are described as having “passed out of death into life” (1 John 3:14),
having been “made … alive together with Christ” (Eph 2:5). is abundant
use of resurrection terminology in reference to the new birth is said to
provide clear evidence that the rst resurrection of Revelation 20 is spiritual
regeneration.79
A second argument for the regeneration view is that the apostle John
describes the rst resurrection as “souls” coming to life (Rev 20:4). As Floyd
Hamilton writes:

e deliberate choice of the word “soul,” which almost universally

means soul as distinct from body, as applying to the believers now
reigning with Christ in glory, seems to make it perfectly plain that
the rst resurrection is [the new birth]. If it were a literal
resurrection of the body, why should the author choose a word
which almost always does not mean body?80

A third argument for this view is found in John 5:25–29.81 In this

passage, when Jesus refers to a spiritual resurrection of believers in the
present (vv. 25–27)—in contrast to a physical resurrection of believers in the
future (vv. 28–29)—the spiritual resurrection in view is the new birth of the
one who believes in Christ. Because of the parallel between this passage and
Revelation 20, John 5:25–29 is said to support the idea not merely that the
“ rst resurrection” is spiritual in general, but that it is the regeneration of the
believer in particular.
In response, there are several signi cant difficulties with this view of the
rst resurrection in Revelation 20. First, the word “resurrection”
(ajnavstasiV) is used 39 times in the New Testament outside of Revelation 20
and never is it used to refer to regeneration.82 is objection is not
conclusive, because it is possible that Revelation 20 uses this word in a
unique way, especially since a metaphorical use of ajnavstasiV would be a
tting way to signify being “made alive” in the spiritual realm. But
nonetheless, the lack of precedent for this use of ajnavstasiV places the
burden of proof on those who claim that the “ rst resurrection” is the
believer’s regeneration.
A second problem concerns the coming to life of “the rest of the dead” at
the beginning of verse 5. When John says that these individuals “came to
life” (e[zhsan), most interpreters agree that this verb refers to a physical
resurrection. Because John uses the same form of the same Greek word
(e[zhsan) to refer to the coming to life of the individuals in verse 4, it stands
to reason that this “ rst resurrection” must be a physical resurrection as well.
Otherwise, “we are faced with the problem of the same word being used in
the same context with two entirely different meanings, with no indication
whatsoever as to the change of meaning.”83 e premillennial view does not
have this problem, because it sees the verb e[zhsan as referring to a physical
resurrection in both verses—a resurrection of the righteous in verse 4 and a
resurrection of the wicked in verse 5.
Regarding the amillennial argument that John’s use of the word “souls”
in Revelation 20:4 supports this view, yuchv is oen used as a reference to
the whole person (Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9; 9:56; Acts 2:41, 43; 3:23; 7:14; 15:26;
27:37; Rom 2:9; 13:1; 1 Cor 15:45; 1 Pet 3:20)84 and therefore it need not
refer to the resurrection of merely the spiritual component of man. In fact,
as amillennialist G. C. Berkouwer recognizes, there seems to be no soul-
body dichotomy in view in Revelation 20:4–6, for John simply sees that
those who had been beheaded come to life again and sit on thrones.85 For
this reason, the use of yuchv in Revelation 20:4 is compatible with the
premillennial view of the “ rst resurrection” and therefore fails to provide
compelling evidence that it refers to the regeneration of believers.
A third problem with this view concerns the duration of the reign of the
saints. In Revelation 20:4 and 6, the apostle John describes the saints
reigning “for a thousand years” (civlia e[th). In doing so, he uses an
accusative of time, which indicates that the saints will reign for the entire
thousand-year period.86 is can be illustrated by John’s use of the same
accusative of time in Revelation 20:2—“for a thousand years” (civlia e[th)—
where Satan is bound and incarcerated for the entirety of the thousand
years. According to John’s portrayal of the vision, then, the individuals who
come to life in the rst resurrection will begin their reign at the same time—
at the very beginning of the thousand years—and they will reign together
with Christ for the entirety of that time period (Rev 20:4–6).87
In contrast, according to the amillennial view that the rst resurrection
equals regeneration, believers are regenerated throughout the thousand years
(i.e., the present age) so that the entrance of these saints into this millennial
reign is distributed throughout the millennium.88 In this scenario, those
saints who are saved during the church age do not reign for the entirety of
the thousand years—as John says they will—and some of them do not begin
their reign until the millennium is almost over.
If John had intended to communicate that the saints would reign during
the thousand years (which would correspond to the amillennial view)
instead of throughout the extent of the thousand years, a genitive of time
would have been more appropriate.89 As it stands, the apostle’s use of the
accusative civlia e[th (“for a thousand years”) not only presents a problem
for the amillennial regeneration view, but it also ts perfectly with
premillennial view of believers coming to life in the rst resurrection and
reigning with Christ for the entirety of the thousand years.90
Fourthly, and most signi cantly, according to the view that the “ rst
resurrection” in Revelation 20 is regeneration, the people in verse 4 are not
regenerated by the Holy Spirit until aer they are martyred for their faith in
Christ. In the second part of John’s vision in Revelation 20:4, the apostle
John writes:
 And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of
their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those
who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received
the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life
and reigned with Christ for a thousand years (Rev 20:4).

According to the straightforward reading of Revelation 20:4, this view

introduces “the absurdity of having souls being regenerated aer they’ve
been beheaded for their faithfulness to Christ!”91 Because this is
theologically impossible, this view of the rst resurrection must be
rejected.92

View 2: e Death of the Believer

Other amillennialists interpret the “ rst resurrection” of Revelation 20 as the
believer’s entrance into the intermediate state at the point of death and the
blessings of life that it brings.93 William Hendriksen describes the rst
resurrection as “the translation of the soul from this sinful earth to God’s
holy heaven;”94 Anthony Hoekema calls it “the transition from physical
death to life in heaven with Christ during the time between death and the
resurrection;”95 and James Hughes de nes it as “the soul’s being raised from
earth to heaven.”96
According to this view, when the believer dies physically, his soul is
raised and it ascends from earth to heaven where he lives and reigns with
Christ for a thousand years.97 is ascension—in which the soul enters the
intermediate state of life with Christ—is called the “ rst resurrection.”98 In
the words of Robert Strimple, “e rst resurrection occurs when [the
believer] departs this life and is immediately ushered into the presence of
Christ to reign with him.”99
According to this view, the rst resurrection of Revelation 20 is
considered a paradoxical reference to the physical death of the believer.100
As Meredith Kline explains, “Just as the resurrection of the unjust is
paradoxically identi ed as ‘the second death’ so the death of the Christian is
paradoxically identi ed as ‘the rst resurrection’…. What for others is the
rst death is for the Christian a veritable resurrection!”101 In other words,
even though these believers have died, “John sees them as alive, not in the
bodily sense, but in the sense that they are enjoying life in heaven in
fellowship with Christ.”102
According to amillennialist Sam Storms, if the apostle John’s purpose in
Revelation 20:4–6 was to encourage believers who were facing persecution
and possible martyrdom,

what better, more appropriate, or even more biblical way could he

have done so than by assuring them that though they may die
physically at the hands of the beast they will live spiritually in the
presence of the Lamb? I can think of no more vivid way of making
this point than that of life beyond and in spite of death.103

In fact, Storms argues that the terminology John uses to describe his vision
ts perfectly with the view that the rst resurrection refers to entrance into
the intermediate state:

If John were attempting to describe the blessings of the intermediate

state for those facing martyrdom, what terminology could he
possibly have used, other than what he does use, and still maintain
the desired emphasis? ere simply is no other Greek noun besides
anastasis [“resurrection”] that would adequately make the point.104

As evidence that Revelation 20:4–6 refers to the experience of martyrs in

the intermediate state—and therefore that the rst resurrection must refer to
entrance into the intermediate state—amillennialists point to John’s use of
the word “thrones” in verse 4.105 According to Storms, because the Greek
word for “throne” (qrovnoV) consistently refers to heavenly thrones
throughout the book of Revelation, it must refer to thrones in heaven in
Revelation 20:4 as well.106 For this reason, because the resurrected martyrs
are described as sitting upon these heavenly thrones, the millennial reign of
these saints must refer to life in heaven in the intermediate state.
As further evidence for this view, it is also noted that John speci cally
refers to “souls” (yuchv) being resurrected and reigning with Christ (Rev
20:4).107 According to this argument, the reason John refers to the
experience of disembodied souls who are martyred is because he is
describing the blessedness of the intermediate state of those who are now
living and reigning with Christ during the thousand years.108
Amillennialists also point to other uses of the verb “to live” (zavw) in the New
Testament.109 According to this argument, because zavw is used to describe
the life and existence of souls aer the death of the body in passages such as
Matthew 22:32,110 Luke 20:38,111 and 1 Peter 4:6,112 there is a clear
precedent of this word being used to describe life in the intermediate state.
is argument is said to support this speci c use of the verb in Revelation
20:4.
As a nal argument for this view, amillennialists point to other passages
in the book of Revelation which highlight spiritual life in the intermediate
state aer physical death. For example, Revelation 2:10–11 promises “the
crown of life” to those believers who are faithful until death;113 Revelation
6:9–11 “is a vision of the heavenly bliss of those who have suffered
martyrdom for Christ;”114 and Revelation 14:13 emphasizes “the blessedness
of Christian death.”115 ese parallels are said to con rm that Revelation
20:4–6 “is concerned with the bliss of the intermediate state”116 and
therefore that the “ rst resurrection” refers to entrance into the intermediate
state.
In response, the primary difficulty with this view concerns the term
ajnavstasiV. As even amillennialist Sydney Page observes, “Like all attempts
to relate the rst resurrection to the intermediate state, it faces the objection
that the translation of the soul of the believer to heaven at death is not
spoken of as a resurrection anywhere else in the NT.”117 But not only does
this view insist on a use of ajnavstasiV which is unprecedented in the New
Testament, it also argues for an interpretation of the “ rst resurrection” that
is inconsistent with the very concept of a “resurrection.”118 According to this
view, the word “resurrection” refers to those who live spiritually even though
they have died physically. In this way, the term “resurrection” refers to “the
Christian’s entrance into non-bodily life aer bodily death” or “the
Christian’s passage from bodily death into non-bodily life.”119 e problem
is that “resurrection” does not imply life aer death but rather life from
death.120 In other words, “When the Bible and its interpreters invoke
resurrection as a term or concept, life and death are understood to be either
both spiritual (non-bodily) or both physical (bodily).”121
erefore, when someone who is physically dead is made alive in the
physical realm, this is oen referred to as a “resurrection.” Likewise, when
someone who is spiritually dead is made alive in the spiritual realm, this
could also be described as a “resurrection.”122 But when someone who is
already spiritually alive continues to live spiritually even aer his physical
death, no coming to life—and therefore no “resurrection”—has actually
taken place. For this reason, “We may rightly call such life ‘the intermediate
state’ or ‘the Christian’s aerlife,’ but not ‘resurrection.’”123 e word
ajnavstasiV is completely ill suited to convey the believer’s entrance into the
intermediate state at death, and therefore this view should be rejected.124
A second problem with this view concerns the repetition of the identical
form of the same verb e[zhsan (“they came to life”) in verses 4 and 5. If one
resurrection is spiritual, then the other must also be spiritual, and if one is
physical, the other must be physical as well. As A. J. Gordon writes, “e
meaning of the one xes the meaning of the other.”125 is has signi cant
implications:

If e[zhsan in both verses refers to a physical resurrection, there is no

problem. But if e[zhsan refers to a spiritual resurrection in both
verses, then the exegete is confronted with an insurmountable
problem. For this would imply that the unbelieving dead of verse 5
live spiritually in heaven like the martyrs of verse 4 aer the
thousand years is completed.126

is is a theological and exegetical impossibility, and for this reason, the use
of the word e[zhsan as a description of the “ rst resurrection” weighs heavily
against this view.
A third problem with this view concerns the designation civlia e[th (“for
a thousand years”) at the end of Revelation 20:4. As explained above, John’s
use of the accusative of time indicates that the individuals who come to life
in the rst resurrection will begin their reign at the same time—at the very
beginning of the thousand years—and they will reign together with Christ
for the entirety of the millennium (Rev 20:4–6).127 In contrast, according to
the view that the rst resurrection refers to believers entering the
intermediate state at the point of death, the entrance of these saints into
their reign is distributed throughout the millennial period as they die.128 In
this scenario, believers do not live in heaven and reign with Christ for the
entirety the thousand years—as John says they will—and some of them do
not begin their reign until the millennium is almost over. A genitive of time
would have been compatible with this view, but the accusative of time is not.
Furthermore, the various arguments in favor of this view are less than
compelling. First, the claim of a clear precedent of the word zavw (“to live”)
being used as a reference to life in the intermediate state is true, but also a
bit misleading. e verb is used 139 times in the New Testament, but only
three times is it used in this way (Matt 22:32; Luke 20:38; 1 Pet 4:6).
erefore, a clear precedent does exist, but the rarity of its use undermines
the strength of this argument, especially in the absence of clear contextual
indicators for this uncommon usage.129 e verb can certainly be used to
describe life in the intermediate state, but John’s use of this speci c word in
Revelation 20:4 provides no compelling evidence that it does.
Second, John’s use of the word “throne” (qrovnoV) in verse 4 is not a
decisive argument in favor of this view either. According to some
amillennialists, because qrovnoV refers to heavenly thrones throughout
Revelation, it must refer to heavenly thrones in Revelation 20:4 as well. is
is said to place the scene of Revelation 20:4–6 in heaven and therefore
during the intermediate state. But the word qrovnoV simply refers to a throne,
without specifying the actual location of the throne. Instead, the location of
the throne mentioned in any given passage must be determined from the
immediate context of its use. In Revelation 20, the context indicates that the
saints who reign from these thrones are “on the broad plain of the earth”
(Rev 20:9). Furthermore, the promise in Revelation 5:10 that the saints “will
reign upon the earth” also argues for earthly thrones in Revelation 20:4–6
since the former is ful lled in the latter. is amillennial argument is less
than compelling, for if John had intended to refer to thrones on earth, what
other word was available to him to do so?
irdly, John’s reference to “souls” (yuchv) being resurrected and
reigning with Christ (Rev 20:4) fails to provide compelling evidence for this
view either. As noted previously, the use of yuchv to refer to the whole
person is well attested in the New Testament (e.g., Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9; 9:56;
Acts 2:41, 43; 3:23; 7:14; 15:26; 27:37; Rom 2:9; 13:1; 1 Cor 15:45; 1 Pet
3:20).130 In addition, there seems to be no soul-body dichotomy in view in
Revelation 20:4–6, for John sees simply that those who had been beheaded
come to life again and sit on thrones.131 For this reason, the use of yuchv in
Revelation 20:4 is compatible with the premillennial view of the “ rst
resurrection” and therefore fails to prove the amillennial view.
In addition, the amillennial argument for interpreting yuchv in
Revelation 20:4 as a reference to man’s soul (as distinguished from his
physical body) actually highlights the primary problem with this view, for in
what sense does the believer’s soul experience a “resurrection” at the point of
physical death? Again, when someone who is already spiritually alive
continues to live spiritually even aer his physical death, no coming to life
has actually taken place.
Fourthly, none of the parallel passages cited by amillennialists con rm
that Revelation 20:4–6 describes life in the intermediate state and therefore
that the “ rst resurrection” refers to entrance into the intermediate state. e
strongest amillennial argument in this regard is the appeal to Revelation
6:9–11.132 According to amillennialist Sam Storms, a careful comparison
between Revelation 6:9–11 and Revelation 20:4 reveals that they are clearly
describing the same experience of martyred saints in the intermediate
state:133

Revelation 6:9 Revelation 20:4a

“And … I saw” “And I saw”
“the souls of those who had been “the souls of those who had been
slain” beheaded”
“because of the word of God” “because of the word of God”
“and because of the testimony
“because of the testimony of Jesus”
which they had maintained”

Figure 2. Storms, Kingdom Come, 458.134

Because of these parallels, Storms says it “seems beyond reasonable doubt”
that these two visions are describing the same experience of the martyrs and
therefore that Revelation 20:4–6 must portray life in the intermediate
state.135
But the problem with this argument is that the similarities listed by
Storms merely prove that both visions refer to the same group of individuals,
not that both visions describe the same experience of those individuals. In
fact, John identi es the martyrs and what led to their deaths in Revelation
6:9 and 20:4a, but he does not describe the experience of these martyrs until
Revelation 6:10–11 and 20:4b. For this reason, if Storms wants to
demonstrate that Revelation 6:9–11 and 20:4 describe the same experience
of these martyrs in the intermediate state, he must show clear parallels
between Revelation 6:10–11 and 20:4b.136 But these are the very parts of the
passages he ignores in his comparison.
e two visions are obviously related to one another, but their
relationship is one of progression rather than simple identity.137 More
speci cally, the progression from Revelation 6:9–11 to 20:4–6 is such that if
the former refers to the intermediate state (as it clearly does), then the latter
must refer to a subsequent stage in the experience of the martyred saints.138
In Revelation 6:10–11 the martyrs cry out to the Lord to avenge their blood
because of the ongoing martyrdom of the saints (v. 10). In response to their
anguished pleas, they are given a white robe and told to wait until the full
number of martyrs has been slain (v. 11), with the implied promise that
vindication will come when this number has been reached. is is indeed
the intermediate state.
In Revelation 20:4b, however, their number is now complete (cf. Rev
13:15; 18:24) and their prayers for vindication have been answered, for the
Lord has returned in judgment (Rev 19:11–21).139 e wait for divine
vengeance is over, and the entire group of martyrs comes to life and reigns
with Christ for a thousand years (Rev 20:4). is distinction between the
two is re ected in the fact that the experience of the martyred saints in
Revelation 6:9–11 lasts for a short time (“a little while longer” in v. 11),
whereas the experience of the martyred saints in Revelation 20:4–6 lasts for
a long time (“a thousand years” in v. 4).140 e two passages are clearly not
describing the same experience or period of time.
 Storms and other amillennialists may disagree with the futuristic reading
of the book of Revelation, but the consistency of this progression between
the two passages demonstrates the compatibility of Revelation 6:9–11 with
the premillennial view of Revelation 20:4–6. In doing so, it also
demonstrates that Revelation 6:9–11 fails to provide compelling evidence
that Revelation 20:4–6 describes life in the intermediate state.141

CONCLUSION
In the words of George Eldon Ladd, “It is difficult to see how this ‘ rst
resurrection’ can be anything but literal bodily resurrection.”142 For this
reason, the rst resurrection in Revelation 20 must be the rst of two
physical resurrections which are separated by a thousand years. e rst is a
resurrection of the righteous, who will be raised at the Second Coming of
Christ (Rev 20:4–6), and the second is a resurrection of the wicked (Rev
20:5a), who will be raised aer the millennium to stand before the judgment
of the great white throne (Rev 20:11–15). And between these two physical
resurrections, King Jesus will reign upon the earth for a thousand years, just
as premillennialism teaches.

1 Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, expanded
ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013), 242.
2 Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: e Amillennial Alternative (Ross-shire, Scotland:
Mentor, 2013), 451.
3 Millard J. Erickson, Christian eology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1985), 1214.
4 Millard J. Erickson, A Basic Guide to Eschatology: Making Sense of the Millennium
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 97.
5 e common translation “they came to life” in verse 4 interprets e[zhsan as an
ingressive aorist. Hughes argues that the aorist tense of zavw (e[zhsan) is constative
(“they lived”) rather than ingressive (“they came to life”) (James A. Hughes, “Revelation
20:4–6 and the Question of the Millennium,” WTJ 35, no. 3 [Spring 1973]: 290–92),
but his arguments were sufficiently refuted by Jack S. Deere (“Premillennialism in
Revelation 20:4–6,” BSac 135, no. 537 [Jan 1978]: 66–67). Most amillennialists now
agree with Deere, including G. K. Beale, who writes that “it is better to view it as
ingressive on analogy with [Rev] 2:8 and 13:14, as well as Luke 15:32 and Rom. 14:9”
(G. K. Beale, e Book of Revelation, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1999], 1000).
 e rst part of Rev 20:5 (“e rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand
6
years were completed”) is parenthetical. erefore, when John refers to the “ rst
resurrection” in the next part of verse 5, he is pointing back to the coming to life
described at the end of verse 4. is appears to be the general consensus on both sides
of the millennial debate.
7 John F. Walvoord, “e eological Signi cance of Revelation 20:1–6,” in Essays in
Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, eds. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1986), 236.
8 Robert L. Saucy, e Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: e Interface Between
Dispensational and Non-Dispensational eology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 1993), 276. e closest and most reasonable antecedent of “they” in the
verb “they sat” (ejkaqivsan) in Rev 20:4 is “the armies which are in heaven, clothed in
ne linen, white and clean” from Rev 19:14, that is, the people of God who accompany
Christ at His return (David J. MacLeod, “e Fourth ‘Last ing’: e Millennial
Kingdom of Christ (Rev. 20:4–6),” BSac 157, no. 625 [Jan 2000]: 55; Robert L. omas,
Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary [Chicago: Moody Press, 1995], 414). But
as Craig Blaising observes, “e identity of the occupants of these thrones is not
crucial to resolving the millennial question” (Craig A. Blaising, “Premillennialism,” in
ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock [Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing], 221).
9 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 224.
10 BDAG, 71–72; Frederick William Danker, e Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 28; Deere,
“Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6,” 71; Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 224; William
J. Webb, “Revelation 20: Exegetical Considerations,” e Baptist Review of eology 4,
no. 2 (Fall 1994): 36; A. J. Gordon, “e First Resurrection,” in Premillennial Essays, ed.
Nathaniel West (Minneapolis: Bryant Baptist Publications, 1981), 82. In Luke 2:34,
ejkavqisan is used in its etymological sense of “rising” (MacLeod, “e Fourth ‘Last
ing,’” 59).
11 Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 275.
12 Alva J. McClain, e Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of
God (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1959), 488. As Gordon explains, when Paul
describes those who were made alive in Eph 2:4–7 as having previously been “dead in
[their] trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1), one can “infer immediately and rightly that a
spiritual revivi cation has taken place, because the condition on which the change
took effect was spiritual. And so here [in Rev 20:4], the condition of literal death
having been so unmistakably pointed out, the inference is immediate and inevitable
that the quickening is a literal and corporeal quickening” (“e First Resurrection,”
80).
13 Harold W. Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” in A Case for Premillennialism: A
New Consensus, eds. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1992), 254; Jeffrey L. Townsend, “Is the Present Age the Millennium?,” BSac 140,
no. 559 (July 1983): 219; MacLeod, “e Fourth ‘Last ing,’” 59; George Eldon Ladd,
 Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1952), 148–49; C. Marvin Pate, “A Progressive Dispensationalist View of Revelation,”
in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 1998), 171. In addition, as omas notes, whenever the verb zavw (“to live”)
is used in the context of bodily death in the New Testament, it always speaks of bodily
resurrection (e.g., John 11:25; Acts 1:3; 9:41) (Revelation 8–22, 417).
14 As Ladd writes, “e same experience overtook both groups: one at the beginning, one
at the end of the millennial period” (George Eldon Ladd, “Revelation 20 and the
Millennium,” RevExp 57, no. 2 [April 1960]: 169).
15 Louis Berkhof, Systematic eology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publshing, 1939), 715;
Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith, 121; Anthony Hoekema, e Bible and the
Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1979), 232.
16 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., “A Postmillennial Response to Craig A. Blaising,” in ree Views
on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing), 243. Gentry is postmillennial, but this objection is raised by
amillennialists and postmillennialists alike.
17 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 166.
18 is is especially clear in John 5:29 where Jesus speaks of two different physical
resurrections: “a resurrection of life” and “a resurrection of judgment.” According to
McClain, this passage lays an exegetical foundation for the two resurrections in
Revelation 20 (e Greatness of the Kingdom, 489).
19 Wayne Grudem, Systematic eology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1994), 1119; Herman A. Hoyt, “A Dispensational
Premillennial Response,” in e Meaning of the Millennium, ed. Robert G. Clouse
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 195.
20 Grudem, Systematic eology, 1120.
21 Ibid., 1119.
22 Craig A. Blaising, “A Premillennial Response to Robert B. Strimple,” in ree Views on
the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing), 150.
23 See, for example, Isa 9:6–7; 40:1–5; 61:1–2 (cf. Luke 4:16–21); Jer 29:10–14; Zech 9:9–
10; and Joel 2:28–32.
24 An additional argument against the premillennial view of the rst resurrection comes
from Sydney Page, who points out that there is no explicit mention of the return of
Christ in Rev 20:4–6, which “would be a surprising omission if the coming to life
refers to the resurrection that occurs at that time” (Page, “Revelation 20 and Pauline
Eschatology,” 36). But according to the premillennial view, the Second Coming is
explicitly described in Rev 19:11–21, which takes place at the very beginning of the
thousand years of Rev 20:1–6, so this objection carries no weight.
25 Meredith G. Kline, “e First Resurrection,” WTJ 37, no. 3 (Spring 1975): 366–75; and
Meredith G. Kline, “e First Resurrection: A Reaffirmation,” WTJ 39, no. 1 (Fall
1976): 110–19.
26 E.g., Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1002–7; Vern S. Poythress, e Returning King: A
Guide to the Book of Revelation (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, 2000), 179–81; Dennis E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary
on Revelation (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2001), 291–94;
Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 244–49; Storms, Kingdom Come, 462–66.
27 e most obvious exception is found in the immediate response to Kline’s original
article by J. Ramsey Michaels (“e First Resurrection: A Response,” WTJ 39, no. 1
[Fall 1976]: 100–9). In subsequent years, however, most premillennialists have either
ignored this argument altogether or addressed it only brie y. For example, Deere
(“Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6,” 72) and Blaising (“Premillennialism,” 224)
relegate their responses to a single footnote, and Hoehner (“Evidence from Revelation
20,” 255) summarizes the responses of Michaels and Deere in a single paragraph. Most
others don’t even mention it.
28 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1004; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 243–44;
Storms, Kingdom Come, 462; Jonathan Menn, Biblical Eschatology (Eugene, OR:
Resource Publications, 2013), 359–60.
29 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 243–44; Storms, Kingdom Come, 462; Beale,
e Book of Revelation, 1004; R. Fowler White, “Death and the First Resurrection in
Revelation 20: A Response to Meredith G. Kline,” unpublished paper presented at ETS,
1992, 2, 19.
30 Kline, “e First Resurrection,” 366; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 244–45;
Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1002–15; Menn, Biblical Eschatology, 359–63. As
Riddlebarger summarizes, “e terms do not indicate sequence but contrast” (A Case
for Amillennialism, 245).
31 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1005.
32 Storms, Kingdom Come, 465.
33 Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 291; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1005–6.
34 Kline, “e First Resurrection,” 366–67. Later Kline writes, “To be called ‘ rst’ within
that pattern is to be assigned a place in this present world with its transient order. at
which is ‘ rst’ does not participate in the quality of consummate nality and
permanence which is distinctive of the new kingdom order of the world to come”
(369).
35 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 245; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1006.
36 Storms, Kingdom Come, 463.
37 Ibid., 464. In other words, the rst resurrection of Rev 20:5 is “ rst” in the sense that it
belongs “to the order of the present world which is passing away” (Donald Garlington,
“Reigning with Christ: Revelation 20:1–6 and the Question of the Millennium,” R&R 6,
no. 2 [Spring 1997]: 75).
38 As Dennis Johnson writes, “e ‘ rst resurrection’ granted to deceased saints in
Revelation 20:4–6, since it belongs to the present, preconsummation order, is not their
reception of the bodies made like Christ’s glorious body, tted for immortal residence
in the curse-free new earth (Phil. 3:21)” (Triumph of the Lamb, 291–92).
39 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1007; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 246.
40 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1007. According to Riddlebarger, “If two major
redemptive covenants—the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant—can be
contrasted with the same terms, [ rst] and new, this certainly strengthens the case that
John did the same thing in Revelation 20 and 21, contrasting two kinds of
resurrection” (A Case for Amillennialism, 246).
41 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1007.
42 Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6,” 72; As Blaising writes, “It seems
incredible that Meredith Kline could devote two articles attempting to defend a
traditional amillennial view of ‘the rst resurrection’ by means of an argument on the
word ‘ rst,’ completely ignoring the operative term ‘resurrection’” (“Premillennialism,”
224).
43 Steve Sullivan, “Premillennialism and an Exegesis of Revelation 20,” 35; accessed on
July 20, 2014, http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Sullivan-PremillennialismAndA.pdf.
e adjective prw:toV is used in two basic ways in the New Testament: It can refer
either to that which is rst in a sequence or that which is most prominent or important
(BDAG, 892–94; Danker, e Concise Greek-English Lexicon, 309). In all of its 19 uses
in Revelation, prw:toV appears to describe being rst in a sequence.
44 is qualitative distinction is indicated not by the terms “ rst/old” and “second/new”
themselves but rather by the contexts in which they occur.
45 Michaels, “e First Resurrection,” 105.
46 Ibid.
47 at only unbelievers are in view in Rev 20:11–15 is clear for a number of reasons: (1)
“e rest of the dead” in Rev 20:5—which refers to unbelievers as those who do not
take part in the “ rst resurrection”—is the obvious antecedent of “the dead” in verse
12. (2) e resurrection of “the dead” in Rev 20:11–13 is the second resurrection
implied in verse 5b, and this resurrection leads to the “second death” in verse 6a, of
which believers are said to have no part (omas, Revelation 8–22, 431). (3) e only
stated outcome of this judgment is the lake of re (Rev 20:15). (4) “e Book of Life
comes into the discussion only to show that the names of these dead are not written
there” (omas, Revelation 8–22, 431). (5) is ts the broader context of Revelation
19–20, which sets forth God’s ultimate victory over everything corrupted by sin—the
beast, the false prophet, Satan, heaven and earth, and now His unbelieving human
enemies. At the very least one would have to agree with the observation of Michaels
that “in these verses there is no emphasis at all upon this future resurrection as positive
object of Christian hope” (Michaels, “e First Resurrection,” 105).
48 Even though this argument was rst articulated in 1975 by Meredith Kline, the chiastic
relationship between the two deaths and two resurrections was identi ed in 1960 by
Summers (Ray Summers, “Revelation 20: An Interpretation,” RevExp 57, no. 2 [April
1960]: 182). Jonathan Menn appears to trace Kline’s view/argument back to Alexander
Fraser’s Key to the Prophecies of the Old and New Testaments Which Are Not Yet
Accomplished in 1802 (Menn, Biblical Eschatology, 360–61), but a comparison shows
that the similarities between Fraser and Kline have been exaggerated.
49 e fact that a given adjective modi es a given noun only once in the entire New
Testament should not lead the interpreter to expect a specialized meaning of the
adjective-noun combination which ascribes an unprecedented meaning to the noun.
But the amillennial approach does just that.
50 Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” 255.
51 BDAG, 892–94; Danker, e Concise Greek-English Lexicon, 309; G. Abbott-Smith, A
Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986),
389–90; J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 1995), 557; Wilhelm Michaelis, “prw:toV,” in TDNT, ed.
Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1964), 6:865–68; Karl Heinz
Bartels, “prw:toV,” in NIDNTT, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 1986), 1:664–67; Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. (New York: United
Bible Societies, 1989), 2:214. One possible exception is EDNT, which states that John’s
use of prw:toV in Rev 21:1 refers to “what was and is transitory” (Hugolinus
Langkammer, “prw:toV,” in EDNT, 3:189). It is not clear, however, whether
Langkammer believes that the concept of transitoriness is communicated by the
greater context of Rev 21:1, or by the word in and of itself.
52 Put another way, the adjective prw:toV can be used to describe several things which are
rst in a series without communicating other attributes which are also true of the
nouns it modi es. To illustrate, if someone were to use the adjective “blue” to describe
a chair, a table, and a cabinet, the fact that all three are also made of wood does not
prove that the adjective “blue” is a technical term for something consisting of wood.
53 Both amillennial views of the “ rst resurrection” require a meaning for ajnavstasiV
which is unprecedented in the New Testament, a point to be discussed more fully
when these views are considered below.
54 Storms, Kingdom Come, 462; also see Kline, “e First Resurrection,” 366–67, 369–71;
Garlington, “Reigning with Christ,” 75.
55 Kline, “e First Resurrection,” 366, 368–70; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism,
245.
56 Kline, “e First Resurrection,” 368; Storms, Kingdom Come, 463–64.
57 Kline, “e First Resurrection,” 370.
58 Ibid., 366, 368; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 245–46; Storms, Kingdom
Come, 462. In explaining the antithesis between the two adjectives, Kline describes the
rst Adam in 1 Corinthians 15 as “earthy and physical” and the second Adam as
“heavenly and spiritual” (“e First Resurrection,” 368). Likewise, Riddlebarger
explains, “Adam was from earth; Christ is from heaven. Adam stands at the head of the
human race; Christ stands at the head of the redeemed. Death, sin, and weakness
characterize Adam and his descendants, while Christ stands at the head of those raised
from the dead” (A Case for Amillennialism, 246). Beale makes similar observations,
applying them also to the antithesis between the “ rst/old” covenant and the
“second/new” covenant in Hebrews 8–10: “e rst Adam had a perishable, inglorious
 body and brought death, whereas the last Adam had an imperishable and glorious
body and brought eternal life. e rst covenant was temporary and led to death (e.g.,
Heb. 8:13), while the second was eternal and led to life” (e Book of Revelation, 1007).
59 Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 291.
60 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 246–47.
61 Storms, Kingdom Come, 463. As Kline writes, “at which is ‘ rst’ does not participate
in the quality of consummate nality and permanence which is distinctive of the new
kingdom order of the world to come” (“e First Resurrection,” 369).
62 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 240–49; Sam Hamstra Jr., “An Idealist View of
Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1998), 120–21; Page, “Revelation 20 and Pauline
Eschatology,” 37–40; Floyd E. Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1942), 119–23; William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today
(Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1966), 4–5. is view
was also held by postmillennialist Norman Shepherd (“Resurrections of Revelation 20,”
WTJ 37, no. 1 [Fall 1974]: 34–43).
63 Most amillennialists would likely affirm that regeneration is the means by which
believers partake of the age to come, even now in the present age. In contrast, they see
the “ rst man” (1 Cor 15:47) and the “ rst covenant” (Heb 8–10) as that which leads to
death (Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 246; Beale, e Book of Revelation,
1007). is alone demonstrates the inconsistency of the amillennial position, at least
for those who see the “ rst resurrection” as regeneration.
64 Michaels, “e First Resurrection,” 104–5. As Michaels explains, “It is hard to deny
that [the new birth] partakes of the very nature of consummation” (105).
65 Storms, Kingdom Come, 451, 462–65; Kline, “e First Resurrection,” 366–75;
Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 232–37; William Hendriksen, More an
Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1967), 191–93; Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 291–94; Poythress, e Returning King,
182; Vern Sheridan Poythress, “Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1–6,” JETS 36, no. 1
(March 1993): 41–54; Robert B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in ree Views on the
Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing,
1999), 127; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 991–1011; Dean Davis, e High King of
Heaven: Discovering the Master Keys to the Great End Time Debate (Enumclaw, WA:
WinePress Publishing, 2014), 475–82.
66 Beale responds to this argument by insisting that the inconsistency is resolved “by
understanding that the intermediate state of the soul’s resurrection is, indeed, an
incomplete state, since these souls await the nal, consummated physical resurrection
in the new heavens and earth” (e Book of Revelation, 1007; also see Kline, “e First
Resurrection,” 371). But as demonstrated above, the amillennialist ascribes far more to
the meaning of prw:toV than simply “incomplete.” e amillennial antithesis between
“ rst/old” and “second/new” presents the two as polar opposites in which prw:toV
describes that which belongs to the order of this sin-cursed world, being transitory and
 destined to pass away when it is replaced by what is “new.” So the inconsistency
remains.
Kline seeks to resolve the tension in a similar way, noting that this resurrection “is
still not the ultimate glory of the Christian” because it “stands on this side of the
consummation” (“e First Resurrection,” 371). But this too signi cantly dilutes the
amillennial view of the antithesis between the two terms. According to amillennialists,
“ rst” does not mean pre-consummative in the chronological sense of existing or
taking place prior to the consummation. (If it did, the New Covenant itself could not
be considered “new” since it was inaugurated and became operative prior to the
consummation.) Amillennialists present prw:toV not as a chronological modi er
describing what exists (or takes place) during the present world, but as a qualitative
modi er describing what belongs to the present world order. For this reason, Kline’s
appeal to the timing of the “ rst resurrection”—as that which “stands on this side of
the consummation”—fails to offer any substantial response to the objection.
67 Kline, “e First Resurrection,” 371.
68 One amillennialist who takes this view of the “ rst resurrection” de nes it as “the
deliverance of their souls from all that threatened them on earth” (Johnson, Triumph of
the Lamb, 294), and another describes it as an “extension” and “intensi cation” of the
blessedness of regeneration (Garlington, “Reigning with Christ,” 96). Again, how can
this understanding of the rst resurrection in Revelation 20 be reconciled with the
amillennialist’s de nition of the modi er “ rst”?
69 Michaels, “e First Resurrection,” 104. As Michaels continues, “e strangeness of
[Kline’s] proposal becomes clear as soon as we press the interpretation of ‘ rst’ so as to
speak of the ‘old’ resurrection. e difficulty is not so much that Kline includes the
intermediate state in the present passing order of existence, but that he does so while at
the same time calling it a resurrection.” Kline dismisses this objection as Kantian and
Barthian rather than biblical, and he faults Michaels for denying “that there is a
difference in kind between the ‘resurrection’ which the Christian experiences when he
passes into the intermediate state at death … and the resurrection he experiences at the
day of redemption of his body and glori cation” (“A Reaffirmation,” 114–15). But
Kline’s argument is not simply that the two resurrections are different in kind—
something Michaels does not deny, despite Kline’s claim to the contrary—but rather
that they are qualitatively antithetical to each other. It is this qualitative antithesis, in
which “ rst” belongs to this present world order and “new” belongs to the age to come,
that presents such a problem for Kline’s view. Kline’s failure to address this dilemma
leaves Michaels’s objection unanswered.
70 is view was held by Augustine and Calvin and has been defended more recently by
Riddlebarger (A Case for Amillennialism, 240–49), Shepherd (“Resurrections of
Revelation 20,” 34–43), Hamstra (“An Idealist View of Revelation,” 120–21), Page
(“Revelation 20 and Pauline Eschatology,” 37–40), Hamilton (e Basis of Millennial
Faith, 117–21), Cox (Amillennialism Today, 4–5), and White (“Death and the First
Resurrection,” 17–23).
71 As Hamstra clari es, “is reign begins for the believer while on earth but continues
in heaven, since the believer’s soul, on his or her death, is raised to heaven while the
body waits for Christ’s return” (“An Idealist View of Revelation,” 121).
72 Cox, Amillennialism Today, 4.
73 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 249.
74 Hamstra, “An Idealist View of Revelation,” 120.
75 Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith, 117.
76 Page, “Revelation 20 and Pauline Eschatology,” 37.
77 Shepherd, “e Resurrections of Revelation 20,” 36. As previously noted, Shepherd was
postmillennial, but his view and argumentation here coincides with that of many
amillennialists.
78 Cox, Amillennialism Today, 4; Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith, 118–20; Page,
“Revelation 20 and Pauline Eschatology,” 37–39; Shepherd, “e Resurrections of
Revelation 20,” 36; Hamstra, “An Idealist View of Revelation,” 120; Menn, Biblical
Eschatology, 367.
79 Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith, 117–20. According to Cox, this view is based
on the many places in the New Testament where the new birth is referred to as a
resurrection (Amillennialism Today, 4), and Page states that “there is excellent NT
precedent for describing Christian initiation as a resurrection” (“Revelation 20 and
Pauline Eschatology,” 37). Aer examining several Pauline passages, Page concludes:
“If the original readers of Revelation 20 were familiar with the sort of resurrection
theology that we nd in Paul, they might well have interpreted ‘they came to life’ in v 4,
and ‘the rst resurrection’ in v 5, as referring to regeneration” (39).
80 Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith, 132. Amillennialist Dennis Johnson cites the
use of “souls” as an argument against the regeneration view, but he does not explain
why he thinks it presents a problem for this interpretation (Triumph of the Lamb, 293).
81 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 247–48; Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial
Faith, 118; Page, “Revelation 20 and Pauline Eschatology,” 37–38; White, “Death and
the First Resurrection,” 22, 25–27.
82 Gordon, “e First Resurrection,” 82.
83 George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1972), 266; Gordon, “e First Resurrection,” 82–83. e
common amillennial response to this argument cites John 5:25–29 as an example
where the very same passage refers to both the spiritual resurrection of regeneration
(vv. 25–27) and the physical resurrection of the righteous and the wicked at the end of
the age (vv. 28–29) (Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 247–48; Hamilton, e
Basis of Millennial Faith, 118; Page, “Revelation 20 and Pauline Eschatology,” 37–38;
White, “Death and the First Resurrection,” 22, 25–27). But as discussed earlier, the way
the two uses of e[zhsan are connected to each other in Revelation 20—“Some of the
dead e[zhsan (v. 4b), but the rest of the dead did not e[zhsan until later (v. 5a)”—makes
it clear that they refer to the same kind of coming to life.
84 BDAG, 1099–1100; Danker, e Concise Greek-English Lexicon, 388; Deere,
“Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6,” 67. Furthermore, as Deere notes, “John has
 previously used yuchv with a qualifying genitive to refer to the whole person (yuca;V
ajnqrwvpwn in 18:13).” Amillennialist G. K. Beale makes the same observation, noting
that yuchv is used as a substitute for “living body” elsewhere in Revelation (8:9; 12:11;
16:3; cf. 18:13) (e Book of Revelation, 998).
85 G. C. Berkouwer, e Return of Christ: Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1972), 304.
86 See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the
New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1996), 201–3; cf. F. Blass, F. and
A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, trans. and rev. by Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1961), 88–89; A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 469–71.
87 Charles E. Powell, “Progression Versus Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1–6,” BSac 163,
no. 649 (Jan 2006): 109.
88 Ibid.
89 See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 122–24.
90 e amillennialist cannot escape this difficulty by appealing to the symbolic nature of
the book of Revelation, for John’s use of the accusative of time is not imagery but
rather a grammatically precise explanation of the signi cance of what he saw in his
vision. If the rst resurrection refers to the regeneration of believers throughout the
thousand years, why would John portray them as coming to life at the beginning of the
millennium and reigning together with Christ throughout the entirety of the
millennium? No satisfactory answer to this question has been proposed by proponents
of amillennialism.
91 McClain, e Greatness of the Kingdom, 488; emphasis original; also see MacLeod,
“e Fourth ‘Last ing,’” 57; Walvoord, “eological Signi cance,” 235; Hoehner,
“Evidence from Revelation 20,” 253; Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 223.
92 Most amillennialists who interpret the “ rst resurrection” as regeneration neither
acknowledge nor respond to this argument. A rare exception is R. Fowler White, who
argues that the apostle John does not recount the martyrs’ experiences in
chronological order in Rev 20:4. According to White: “He speaks rst of beheading,
then of refusal to worship or bear the name of the beast, then of resurrection and
reign. Whatever our understanding of the rst resurrection, we must all concede that,
though refusal to worship or bear the name of the beast follows beheading in John’s
presentation, that refusal actually preceded beheading in history” (“Death and the First
Resurrection,” 18; emphasis original). is allows to White to argue that the rst
resurrection “actually precedes and ironically leads the saints into martyrdom rather
than delivering them from it” (23). But White has subtly misrepresented John’s
presentation and thereby complicated an otherwise simple progression of events in
Rev 20:4. In the second part of verse 4, the apostle uses only three independent clauses
(each connected by kai;) to describe the unfolding of his vision—“I saw the souls
[(ei\don) ta;V yuca;V] … they came to life [e[zhsan] … they reigned with Christ
 [ejbasivleusan meta; tou: Cristou:]”—and these events are presented in chronological
order. When White describes John’s presentation as departing from chronological
order, he is referring to the clauses which are subordinate to the rst independent
clause. Rather than advancing the action of the actual vision, however, these
subordinate clauses supply background information by explaining how and why the
souls seen by John were killed in the rst place. Condensing this subordinate
description into a concise paraphrase results in the following rendering of verse 4: “I
saw the souls of those [who were martyred] and they came to life and reigned with
Christ for a thousand years.” e fact that John does not relay this background
information in sequential order does not undermine the simplicity of the chronology
of events portrayed by the three main clauses. Contrary to White’s claim, the rst
resurrection does indeed remedy the death of the martyrs described in Rev 20:4 and it
is therefore a physical resurrection. An additional problem with White’s view (that the
saints’ resurrection preceded their martyrdom) is found in the very next verse. By
referring to “the rest of the dead” (oiJ loipoi; tw:n nekrw:n) not coming to life until
aer the thousand years (v. 5a), John makes it clear that those who came to life in verse
4 were indeed physically dead when they experienced the rst resurrection.
93 Storms, Kingdom Come, 451. is view is defended by Kline (“e First Resurrection,”
366–75), Hoekema (e Bible and the Future, 232–37), Hendriksen (More than
Conquerors, 191–93), Johnson (Triumph of the Lamb, 291–94), Poythress (e
Returning King, 182, and “Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1–6,” 53), Strimple
(“Amillennialism,” 127), Beale (e Book of Revelation, 991–1011), Storms (Kingdom
Come, 462–65), and Davis (e High King of Heaven, 475–82). According to
Riddlebarger (A Case for Amillennialism, 249) and Beale (e Book of Revelation,
1011–12), the two amillennial views of the “ rst resurrection” are not necessarily
incompatible with each other, because believers are both raised spiritually from death
to life at the moment of regeneration and raised spiritually from earth to heaven at the
time of death.
94 Hendriksen, More than Conquerors, 192.
95 Anthony A. Hoekema “An Amillennial Response,” in e Meaning of the Millennium:
Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 57.
96 Hughes, “e Question of the Millennium,” 291.
97 Ibid., 290–91. According to Hughes, this is an example of metonymy in which the “ rst
resurrection” is “the entrance of the soul into a glori ed state of life with Christ at
physical death” even though “John uses the term to refer to the soul’s living with Christ
a thousand years (in heaven)” (291).
98 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 237; Hughes, “e Question of the Millennium,”
291. For this reason, Johnson refers to the martyrs’ rst resurrection as “the
deliverance of their souls from all that threatened them on earth” (Triumph of the
Lamb, 294).
99 Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 127.
100 Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 293; Garlington, “Reigning with Christ,” 77. As
Garlington explains: “To the non-Christian onlooker, the death of the believer is the
 end of existence, which compels him to draw the conclusion that there is no difference
between the Christian and himself. John, however, comforts his readers by informing
them that instead of being the termination of life, physical death is the portal through
which the believing person enters into a new phase of that resurrection which began
when he rst heard the voice of the Son of Man” (74). According to Johnson: “Paradox
is no stranger to those familiar with John’s visions. e lion who has conquered is the
lamb who has been slain. e carefully counted Israelite army of 144,000 celibate males
is an innumerable multitude from every nation and people. e church is safe from
destruction, yet exposed to persecution, even to the death. e beast overcomes Jesus’s
witnesses and kills them, yet in so doing the beast inadvertently forfeits to them the
real victory, for in their delity to the death they overcome the dragon-accuser who
animates the beast (Rev. 12:11). From one perspective the martyrs of heaven can be
viewed as sacri cial victims, awaiting just vindication; but from another—even now,
while the ‘ rst things’ (death, mourning, pain) exist—they have experienced a ‘ rst
resurrection,’ the deliverance of their souls from all that threatened them on earth (cf.
7:15–17)” (Triumph of the Lamb, 293–94).
101 Kline, “e First Resurrection,” 371.
102 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 233; cf. Leon Morris, Revelation, TNTC (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1987), 231.
103 Storms, Kingdom Come, 453; emphasis original.
104 Ibid.
105 Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 291; Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 232–33;
Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 125; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 998; Hendriksen, More
than Conquerors, 191.
106 According to Storms, “e word thronos appears sixty-two times in the New
Testament, forty-seven of which are in the book of Revelation. Twice (2:13; 13:2) it
refers to Satan’s throne (being synonymous with his authority or power) and once to
the throne of the beast (16:10). On four occasions it refers to God’s throne on the new
earth in consequence of its having come down from heaven (21:3, 5; 22:1, 3). In every
other instance (forty times) thronos refers to a throne in heaven, either that of God the
Father, of Christ, of the twenty-four elders, etc.” (Kingdom Come, 461; cf. Cornelis P.
Venema, e Promise of the Future [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2000], 328).
107 Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 293; Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 125; Venema, e
Promise of the Future, 329; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 998; Hendriksen, More than
Conquerors, 191–92.
108 Storms, Kingdom Come, 458.
109 According to Beale, “In the Apocalypse [zavw] sometimes refers to physical
resurrection (1:18; 2:8) or more generally to some form of physical existence (16:3;
19:20), but more oen it has gurative connotation of spiritual existence, especially
with respect to God’s attribute of timeless existence (six occurrences). In 3:1 the verb
refers to spiritual life (and the uses in 7:17 and 13:14 are probably also gurative)” (e
Book of Revelation, 1004).
110 Storms, Kingdom Come, 455.
111 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 233–34; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1008–9.
112 Garlington, “Reigning with Christ,” 74, 94; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1009.
113 Storms, Kingdom Come, 455. According to Storms, the parallels between Rev 2:10–11
and Rev 20:4–6 are “unmistakable.”
114 Storms, Kingdom Come, 457; also see Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 234–35;
Beale, e Book of Revelation, 998, 1010; Poythress, e Returning King, 180; Menn,
Biblical Eschatology, 294.
115 Storms, Kingdom Come, 458; also see Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 235;
Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 294.
116 Storms, Kingdom Come, 458.
117 Page, “Revelation 20 and Pauline Eschatology,” 37.
118 In the words of N.T. Wright, “to use the word ‘resurrection’ to refer to death in an
attempt to invest it with a new meaning seems … to strain usage well beyond the
breaking point” (N. T. Wright, e Resurrection of the Son of God [Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2003], 474; emphasis original). e amillennial view that the rst
resurrection equals regeneration does not have this problem, because being made alive
in the spiritual realm certainly ts the concept of a “resurrection,” even though
ajnavstasiV never refers to the new birth in the New Testament.
119 ese de nitions are provided by White (“Death and the First Resurrection,” 8–9),
who is critiquing this view rather than defending it, but they summarize it accurately.
120 White, “Death and the First Resurrection,” 8.
121 Ibid.; emphasis original.
122 is is acknowledged even though the New Testament itself does not use the term
ajnavstasiV as a reference to regeneration (see above for discussion).
123 White, “Death and the First Resurrection,” 8. White states, “I do not see that such
notions are consistent with the meaning of resurrection as a term or concept in the
Bible or elsewhere” (9). Along these same lines, White objects that while the Bible
clearly teaches two categories of resurrection outside of Revelation 20 (e.g., in John 5),
this view creates a third category of resurrection otherwise unknown in the Bible.
124 According to Storms, “If John wished to describe entrance into the intermediate state
in terms of a resurrection … with what Greek noun other than anastasis could he have
done it?” (Kingdom Come, 453). e problem with this argument is that it assumes
what Storms is trying to prove: that John does indeed intend to describe the believer’s
entrance into the immediate state as a resurrection. Nobody disputes that the word
ajnavstasiV is the best word to express the idea of a resurrection—what is disputed is
whether John is describing entrance into the intermediate state as a resurrection. One
could equally argue, “If John wished to describe prayers to God in terms of a
resurrection, with what Greek noun other than ajnavstasiV could he have done it?,” but
this does not prove that the word “resurrection” refers to prayers.
125 Gordon, “e First Resurrection,” 83.
126 Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6,” 68. Because the same word e[zhsan is
used, amillennialist Anthony Hoekema agrees that both resurrections must be of the
same nature, but he argues that neither of them are bodily resurrections. According to
Hoekema, when John says “they came to life [e[zhsan] and reigned with Christ for a
thousand years” (v. 4), this refers to a spiritual resurrection of the saints during the
present age. But when John continues by writing that “the rest of the dead did not
come to life [e[zhsan] until the thousand years were completed” (v. 5a), he means that
the wicked never did come to life spiritually (e Bible and the Future, 235–36; also
Augustine, City of God, 20.9; Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 126; Hughes, “e Question
of the Millennium,” 301–2). Hoekema defends this interpretation by arguing that the
conjunction a[cri in verse 5—“until [a[cri] the thousand years were completed”—
means “up to a certain point” but does not indicate a change in the state of affairs aer
the time period has ended. For this reason, says Hoekema, “e use of the word until
does not imply that these unbelieving dead will live and reign with Christ aer this
period has ended,” for they will never live and reign with Christ (e Bible and the
Future, 236). But this interpretation is highly unlikely for several reasons: (1) Every
time that a[cri is used in the New Testament as a conjunction (as in Rev 20:5) rather
than a preposition, it refers to a period of time that will come to an end and be
followed by a reversal of the condition just described (e.g., Rev 7:3; 15:18; 20:3) (Deere,
“Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6,” 68–69; Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 225–26;
MacLeod, “e Fourth ‘Last ing,’” 58). erefore, the use of the conjunction a[cri in
Rev 20:5 implies that the “rest of the dead” will indeed “come to life” (e[zhsan) and
experience a physical resurrection like the saints in verse 4. (2) e exact same
expression is used in Rev 20:3 (“until the thousand years were completed”—a[cri
telesqh/: ta; civlia e[th) where it clearly contemplates a change aer the thousand years
(since Satan will be released once the millennium is completed) (Rev 20:7–8). is
implies that the rest of dead will indeed “come to life” (e[zhsan) aer the thousand-year
period. (3) If John wanted to deny a resurrection to the others, he could have simply
written, “e rest of the dead did not come to life.” e addition of “until the thousand
years were ended” clearly suggests subsequent action, whereas the clause is entirely
super uous if subsequent action is not intended (Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism,
276). (4) If neither use of e[zhsan refers to a bodily resurrection, then there is no
mention of the future resurrection of the believer in Revelation 20. (5) is
interpretation raises the question of why John would have deemed it necessary to
inform or assure his readers that unbelievers will not experience the spiritual
resurrection promised only to believers. (6) A “ rst resurrection” simply implies a
second one. As Saucy states, “e immediate identi cation of the coming to life of the
rst group as the ‘ rst’ resurrection seems clearly to suggest a second resurrection
involving those remaining” (Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 276). Amillennialists
G. K. Beale (e Book of Revelation, 1015–16) and Sam Storms (Kingdom Come, 468–
69) argue against Hoekema’s view, insisting that Rev 20:5 refers to the physical
resurrection of unbelievers aer the thousand years, which leaves them with no
adequate response to the premillennial objection of the two uses of e[zhsan having
different meanings.
127 Powell, “Progression Versus Recapitulation,” 109.
128 Ibid.
129 In addition, the verb zavw is used elsewhere in Revelation to refer to bodily resurrection
(Rev 1:18; 2:8; 13:14; cf. Rom 14:9). Furthermore, as omas notes, whenever zavw is
used in the context of bodily death in the New Testament, it always speaks of bodily
resurrection (e.g., John 11:25; Acts 1:3; 9:41) (Revelation 8–22, 417).
130 BDAG, 1099–1100; Danker, e Concise Greek-English Lexicon, 388; Deere,
“Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6,” 67.
131 Berkouwer, e Return of Christ, 304.
132 Amillennialists also cite Rev 2:10–11 and 13:14 as evidence that Rev 20:4–6 portrays
life in the intermediate state. According to Storms, Rev 2:10–11 is parallel to Rev 20:4–
6 in three speci c ways: (1) “it speaks of martyrdom as the result of steadfast faith;” (2)
“the faithful are promised ‘the crown of life;’” and (3) “the faithful martyrs are exempt
from the second death” (Kingdom Come, 459; emphasis original). But these parallels do
not prove that Rev 20:4–6 describes life in the intermediate state. To use Rev 2:10–11
as a compelling argument, the amillennialist must be able to demonstrate (a) that
receiving the crown of life takes place during the intermediate state rather than in the
eternal state and (b) that it can be equated with the millennial reign portrayed in Rev
20:4–6. But this cannot be done. According to Kline, the “crown of life” in Rev 2:10
“might … be the royal crown,” in which case it should be considered “the nominal
equivalent of the verbal ‘they lived and reign’ … in Revelation 20:4ff ” (“e First
Resurrection,” 374). But this has merely been asserted rather than proven.
Regarding Rev 14:13, Kline argues that the blessing of “rest from their labors”
promised in this verse “is very much the same as the millennial blessings of Revelation
20:6” (“e First Resurrection,” 373). According to Kline, “e biblical concept of
sabbath rest includes enthronement aer the completion of labors by which royal
dominion is manifested or secured (cf., e.g., Isa. 66:1)…. To live and reign with Christ
is to participate in his royal sabbath rest.” For this reason, Kline cites Rev 14:13 as
evidence that Rev 20:4–6 describes life in the intermediate state. e simple problem
with this argument is its inability to demonstrate that the rest of Rev 14:13 can indeed
be equated with the reign of Rev 20:6. If a case can be made from Isa 66:1 that the two
verses describe the same experience, then this needs to be demonstrated clearly. Until
then, interpreters not already inclined to connect these dots may have a difficult time
seeing the connection.
133 Storms, Kingdom Come, 457.
134 Storms appears to have borrowed his chart from Michel Gourgues, “e ousand-
Year Reign (Rev. 20:1–6): Terrestrial or Celestial?,” CBQ 47, no. 4 (Oct 1985): 680.
135 Storms, Kingdom Come, 458.
136 e only similarity in experience noted by Hoekema is that in both passages “the souls
of deceased believers are said to be living between death and resurrection” (e Bible
and the Future, 235). But this simply assumes that Rev 20:4–6 describes the
intermediate state (i.e., the experience of saints between death and resurrection),
which is precisely what Hoekema is trying to prove.
137 Michaels, “e First Resurrection,” 107; also see Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 221–22.
138 Michaels, “e First Resurrection,” 107–8.
139 As Michaels states, the prayer of Rev 6:9–11 is answered in Rev 20:4–6 (“e First
Resurrection,” 108).
140 Webb, “Revelation 20,” 32. Rev 6:9–11 takes place during the intermediate state, but it
does not cover the entirety of the present age. In fact, the event described in this
passage is yet future, not yet having taken place. More speci cally, it will take place
during the seven-year tribulation and it describes the pleas of those who will be
martyred earlier in that period. So the “little while longer” in verse 11 is less than seven
years in length, in contrast to the millennial reign of Christ, which will last a thousand
years.
141 In response to Michaels’s argument, Kline insists that Rev 20:4–6 views the entire
period of the church in the intermediate state as a whole, whereas Rev 6:9–11 sees it at
a particular point early on (“A Reaffirmation,” 116–17). But in his argument, Kline
simply assumes that Rev 20:4–6 describes the intermediate state without actually
proving it through a comparison of the two passages.
142 Ladd, “Revelation 20 and the Millennium,” 169.
 Chapter 13

e Duration of the
ousand Years

INTRODUCTION

The reign of Christ in Revelation 20 is oen called His millennial reign

because it is described as a thousand years in length. In fact, John uses the
designation “thousand years” (ta; civlia e[th) a total of six times to refer to
the duration of this time period (Rev 20:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Although the
millennial controversy is not primarily a debate over the duration of the
millennium,1 this question has signi cant implications for the plausibility of
the amillennial view.
Amillennialism teaches that the thousand years of Revelation 20
represents the time between the rst and second comings of Christ.2 But this
raises an obvious question: If the millennium is the present age, how can the
thousand years of Revelation 20 refer to a period of time that is nearly two
thousand years and counting? Put simply, if the apostle John intended the
thousand years to be understood literally, the millennium cannot be equated
with the present age and amillennialism is confronted with an
insurmountable problem. e purpose of this chapter is to determine the
duration of the “thousand years” in Revelation 20.

THE AMILLENNIAL VIEW

Amillennialists reject the literal interpretation of the thousand years in
Revelation 20, insisting instead that it must be “a symbolic number,
spanning the entire church age.”3 More speci cally, the designation is seen as
a gurative way to describe “an inde nitely long period of time,”4 “not a
literal period of one thousand years, but the entire period, perfect, complete
and extensive, between the rst and second comings of Christ.”5 Put most
simply, amillennialists believe the thousand years should be interpreted
symbolically.

e Case for the Symbolic View

e primary argument for the symbolic view is that the book of Revelation
is full of symbolism.6 As Cornelis Venema writes, “A book like Revelation,
with its rich symbolism and use of biblical types and gures, gives no
obvious reason to take literally the term of one thousand years.”7 In addition
to the symbolic nature of Revelation in general, amillennialists insist that
numbers in particular are used symbolically.8 As Robert Strimple states, “We
may readily assume that the number is symbolic, for numbers are used
symbolically throughout Revelation.”9 erefore, in keeping with the
symbolic nature of Revelation as a whole and its use of numbers in
particular, amillennialists argue that the number one thousand in Revelation
20 must be symbolic as well.10
A second argument for the symbolic view involves the immediate
context. As Stanley Grenz notes, like the Apocalypse as a whole, Revelation
20 itself is a highly symbolic chapter:

It speaks of Satan being bound with a chain and cast into a

bottomless pit, and it anticipates a second death that lasts forever.
e author obviously intended that none of these be interpreted in a
purely literal manner, as such an interpretation would be nonsensical
—that is, a spiritual being bound with a physical chain and con ned
in a physical pit with no bottom. Consequently, it is possible that
other gures in these verses, including the thousand years, are
likewise to be understood symbolically.11
As Kim Riddlebarger writes, “e immediate context and the gurative
nature of many words used by John, such as chain, abyss, serpent, beast, and
so on, should remind us that numbers are also symbolic of something
else.”12
A third argument for the symbolic view is that the number one thousand
is rarely if ever meant to be taken with arithmetical precision elsewhere in
Scripture.13 According to amillennialist Sam Storms:

is is true whether the context is non-temporal (Ps. 50:10; Song 4:4;
Josh. 23:10; Isa. 60:22; Deut. 1:11; Job 9:3; Eccles. 7:28), in which case
the usage is always gurative, indeed hyperbolical, or temporal
(Deut. 7:9; 1 Chron. 16:15; Pss. 84:10; 90:4; 105:8; 2 Pet. 3:8).14

Venema speci cally points to Exodus 20:5–6, Deuteronomy 7:9, Psalm

50:10–11, Psalm 84:10, Psalm 90:4, and 2 Peter 3:8 as evidence “that the
number one thousand is oen used in the Scriptures to refer to an extensive
period of time.”15 Of these passages, amillennialists most oen cite Psalm
90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 as evidence for the symbolic view of the “thousand
years” in Revelation 20.16
As a nal argument for the symbolic view, amillennialists cite the use of
the number one thousand in Jewish and early Christian writings “as a gure
for the eternal blessing of the redeemed.”17 G. K. Beale speci cally points to
the thousand-year period in Jubilees 23:27–30 as “clearly gurative for the
complete perfection of the eternal time of blessing of God’s people.”18 is, it
is said, provides support for the symbolic view of the thousand years in
Revelation 20.

e Significance of the Symbolism

When explaining the sign cance of the symbolism, amillennialists usually
tie the number one thousand back to the number ten. Anthony Hoekema
writes, “Since the number ten signi es completeness, and since a thousand is
ten to the third power, we may think of the expression ‘a thousand years’ as
standing for a complete period, a very long period of indeterminate
length.”19 In similar way, B. B. War eld states: “e sacred number seven in
combination with the equally sacred number three forms the number of
holy perfection, and when this ten is cubed into a thousand the seer has said
all he could say to convey to our minds the idea of absolute completeness.”20
is same basic idea is articulated in various ways by amillennialists. For
example, the thousand years in Revelation 20 is said to signify “a long era,”21
“a long period of time,”22 “an inde nitely long period of time,”23 “an age-
long, but de nitely limited period of time,”24 “an extensive period of time,”25
“an extended, but inde nite, period of time,”26 “an ideal period of time,”27
“an ideal epoch,”28 “a great epoch in human history,”29 “a time of
completion,”30 “the complete time that God has determined,”31 “a complete
period of time, the length of which is known only by God,”32 “the exceeding
fullness of the divine action,”33 and “the designated space of time within
which the triune God will complete his redemptive purpose.”34 As Venema
summarizes: “e use of one thousand years in Revelation is, when
interpreted against the background of this usage of the symbolism of one
thousand, likely a reference to a period of fullness, completion and
perfection so far as God’s redemptive plan is concerned.”35

THE PREMILLENNIAL VIEW

Premillennialists are divided on the duration of the thousand years in
Revelation 20. Some interpret it literally,36 others interpret it symbolically,37
and still others do not appear to commit one way or the other.38 But all
premillennialists believe that the thousand years represents “a real period of
time, however long or short it may be,”39 which takes place between the
present age and the eternal state.
Premillennialists who interpret the thousand years guratively argue in
very much the same way as amillennialists, seeing the designation as
symbolizing a lengthy period of unknown length.40 However, because
premillennialism is consistent with both the literal and symbolic views, the
duration of the millennium is not consequential for premillennialism like it
is for amillennialism. For this reason, some premillennialists view the length
of the millennium as an incidental question in light of the more
fundamental debate over the existence of an intermediate kingdom between
the present age and the eternal state.41

e Case for the Literal View

For premillennialists who interpret the thousand years literally, the primary
argument concerns the use of numbers elsewhere in the book of Revelation.
Some insist that all the numbers in Revelation are literal;42 others are less
dogmatic, asserting that “no number in Revelation is veri ably a symbolic
number;”43 and yet other premillennialists are open to seeing several
exceptions to what they believe is the general rule of literal numbers in the
Apocalypse.44 But regardless of how many exceptions exist, the vast majority
of the 254 numerical references in Revelation do appear to communicate the
conventional use of a literal number.45 As Steve Sullivan explains:

John demonstrates the conventional use not only by telling us totals

in number, but he also counts out the number of churches, seals,
trumpets, bowls, woes and living creatures. Notice John tells us the
total number of elders is 24, but he also talks to one of the elders
(4:4; 5:5; 7:3). In Revelation 7 he correlates the four angels, the four
corners of the earth and the four winds. Addition or multiplication is
indicated in Revelation 7:4–8 with the 144,000 for they are broken
up into 12 groups of 12,000 each. e mentioning of 42 months
(11:2; 13:5) as 1260 days (11:3; 12:6) is the conventional use of time.
In addition, one could add ½ an hour (8:1), 10 days (2:10), and 5
months (9:5, 10).46

Furthermore, whenever a number is used with a time indicator in

Revelation—such as days (1:10; 2:10, 13; 4:8; 6:17; 7:15; 8:12; 9:6, 15; 10:7;
11:3, 6, 9, 11; 12:6, 10; 14:11; 16:14; 18:8; 20:10; 21:25) or months (9:5, 10,
15; 11:2; 13:5; 22:2)—there is no clear indication that it is symbolic.47 As
Harold Hoehner argues, “ere is no reason for not making the same
application for years.”48
But aside from the use of numbers elsewhere in the Apocalypse—an area
in which there is little agreement and therefore little opportunity for one
side to convince the other—there are several reasons to affirm a literal
understanding of the thousand years in Revelation 20.49 First, in contrast to
the claims of some amillennialists, there is indeed a clear biblical precedent
of the number “one thousand” being used literally in Scripture.50 When
amillennialist Sam Storms argues that the number “one thousand” is rarely if
ever intended “with arithmetical precision,”51 he seems to imply that the
only alternative is that such uses of “one thousand” be understood
symbolically. But the biblical writers oen use round numbers—neither with
“arithmetical precision” nor as a gurative way to symbolize an unde ned
spiritual reality—but as a way to estimate how many persons or units of
something are in view.52
For example, when the Bible refers to “a thousand pieces of silver” (Gen
20:16), “a thousand men” (Judg 15:15–16), “1,000 bulls” (1 Chron 29:21),
“1,000 rams” (1 Chron 29:21), “1,000 lambs” (1 Chron 29:21), “a 1,000 silver
dishes” (Ezra 1:9), and “a 1,000 other articles” (Ezra 1:10), some of these may
be round numbers and therefore not intended “with arithmetical
precision.”53 But this does not mean that these uses of the number are
symbolic and therefore should not be taken literally, as Storms seems to
imply.54 For this reason, the observation that the number “one thousand” is
rarely intended with mathematical precision may be accurate, but it is
irrelevant to the question of whether a given use of the number “one
thousand”—whether in Revelation 20 or elsewhere—should be understood
symbolically.
e second reason to embrace the literal view is the absence of any clear
precedent of the designation “a thousand years” being used symbolically in
Scripture. is speci c designation is used only three times outside of
Revelation 20—in Ecclesiastes 6:6 ( ), Psalm 90:4 ( ), and
2 Peter 3:8 (civlia e[th)—and each of these three uses is best understood
literally rather than symbolically.
In Ecclesiastes 6:1–6, Solomon emphasizes how the three traditional
conditions for human happiness—great wealth (vv. 1–2), an abundance of
children (vv. 3–5), and longevity of life (v. 6)55—bring no ultimate joy and
satisfaction to the one who has not been granted by God the ability to
delight in such gis (cf. Eccl 5:18–20). In the process, Solomon raises the
hypothetical scenario of a man who lives to the incredibly old age of 2,000
years: “Even if the other man lives a thousand years twice and does not enjoy
good things—do not all go to one place?” (Eccl 6:6). In other words, even if
someone were so blessed as to live more than twice the age of Methuselah,
what advantage would there be if this long life eventually terminated having
yielded no enjoyment?56 Such a life would be meaningless. In the course of
this argument, Solomon uses the designation “thousand years” literally,
doubling it to pose a hypothetical scenario in which a man lived to the
unthinkable age of 2,000 years.57
In Psalm 90, as Moses highlights the contrast between the eternity of
God and the transitoriness of man, he says to Yahweh: “For a thousand years
in Your sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night”
(Ps 90:4). As Steven Lawson explains, the meaning of Psalm 90:4 is clear:

From the perspective of God’s in nite eternality, a thousand years of

human history is a mere twenty-four hour day, quickly passing away.
A thousand years for man is like a short three-hour watch in the
night. is is how temporal mortal man’s days are. Man is transitory,
but God is eternal.58

To emphasize this contrast between God and man, then, Moses says that a
thousand years passes by like a single day—or even just three hours—in the
sight of the Lord. e “thousand years” is clearly intended literally in this
comparison in Psalm 90:4.
In 2 Peter 3, the apostle Peter refers to those who will mock the people of
God and insist that their Savior will never return (vv. 3–7). In response, he
takes the insight of Psalm 90:4 and comforts his readers by applying it to the
coming of the Lord: “But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved,
that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like
one day” (2 Pet 3:8). As omas Schreiner explains:

If the passing of time does not diminish God in any way and if he
transcends time so that its passing does not affect his being, then
believers should not be concerned about the so-called delay of
Christ’s coming. e passing of a thousand years, aer all, is like the
passing of a single day to him.59
e meaning of both Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8, then, is dependent on a
literal interpretation of the thousand years and a literal interpretation of the
single day.60 Consequently, there is no clear, unambiguous precedent for the
symbolic use of “thousand years” in the Bible.61 is does not mean that a
symbolic use is impossible, but it does eliminate one of the primary
amillennial arguments for a gurative interpretation of the number in
Revelation 20.
ird, Beale’s claim that the “thousand years” in Jubilees 23:27–30 is a
gurative reference to “the complete perfection of the eternal time of
blessing of God’s people”62 fails to provide evidence for the symbolic view of
the millennium’s duration. A closer look at this passage, in fact,
demonstrates that the “thousand years” in Jubilees 23:27 was actually
intended literally. e angelic address in Jubilees 23 begins with an
explanation of why Abraham lived to be only 175 years of age while his
ancestors had lived far longer (vv. 1–10). According to the angel, the
increase of wickedness leads to a steady decrease in life spans (vv. 11–25). In
the midst of this, God’s people will lament the reality that the lives of
Abraham’s forefathers extended as long as a “thousand years,” but their life
spans were limited to only 70 or 80 years (v. 15). But the turning point will
eventually come when the children begin to seek the commandments of
God and return to the path of righteousness (v. 26). As a result of this
repentance, “e days will begin to become numerous and increase, and
mankind as well—generation by generation and day by day until their
lifetimes approach one thousand years and to more years than the number of
days [had been]” (v. 27; emphasis added). In other words, the actions of the
children will reverse this downward spiral of life spans so dramatically that
human ages will once again, as in the days before Abraham, approach the
length of a thousand years.63 During this time, God’s covenant promises will
be ful lled and His chosen people will live in peace and joy as the Lord
shows them mercy (vv. 28–31). In the greater context of the original
prophecy, then, the “thousand years” of Jubilees 23:27 must be literal,
because the overall picture is that of human life spans being restored to
those of Abraham’s forefathers. e “thousand years” of Jubilees 23:27 is just
as literal as the “thousand years” of Jubilees 23:15, and the amillennial view
of the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 gains no support from this appeal.
 Fourth, when the apostle John intends to express an inde nite quantity
in Revelation 20, he does so not by naming a speci c number like a
“thousand years,” but rather by using inde nite expressions like “for a short
time” (mikro;n crovnon) (v. 3) or “the number of them is like the sand of the
seashore” (v. 8).64 Because John uses inde nite terms to express inde nite
amounts in the same immediate context, his six-fold use of the speci c
number “one thousand” (civlia) in Revelation 20 stands out in contrast and
therefore should be understood as a literal reference to a speci c amount of
time.65

A Closer Look at the Symbolic View

To support the non-literal view of the thousand years in Revelation 20,
amillennialists point to the symbolic nature of the book of Revelation as a
whole. But as George Eldon Ladd notes, “e recognition of the symbolic
language of the Apocalypse does not carry with it the corollary that every
phrase must involve a symbol.”66 Instead, the interpreter must look for clues
in the biblical text which indicate whether a given term—in this case, the
“thousand years”—is used literally or guratively.67
According to premillennialists, the only conceivable approach to
understanding literature of any kind, the book of Revelation included, is to
assume the literal sense unless the nature of the language forces the reader to
consider a symbolic interpretation.68 In other words, even though much of
Revelation is indeed symbolic, “as a rule, it is best to begin with the
assumption that the language of the [prophet] is to be understood
naturally.”69 Not only is this the only conceivable approach, but it also
re ects the fact that symbolic language is a departure from the literal, and
not vice versa:

Whenever we read a book, an essay, or a poem we presume the literal

sense in the document until the nature of the literature may force us
to another level…. e non-literal is always a secondary meaning
which presumes an already existing literal understanding of
literature. is previous stratum of language is the necessary point of
departure for the interpretation of all literature.70
is includes the use of numbers. As John Davis writes, “Numbers should
always be taken at face value and understood as conveying a mathematical
quantity unless there is either textual or contextual evidence to the
contrary.”71
In contrast, amillennialists take the opposite approach.72 According to
Beale, the reader of Revelation should “expect a predominance of symbolic
over literal language, including references to numbers,”73 and therefore he
should approach the Apocalypse with “a nonliteral interpretative method.”74
Even though some parts of Revelation are literal, says Beale, “the essence of
the book is gurative,” and for this reason, “where there is lack of clarity
about whether something is symbolic, the scales of judgment should be
tilted in the direction of a nonliteral analysis.”75
e primary difference between the two approaches, then, can be
summarized in terms of their starting points. e premillennialist begins
with the assumption that the language is literal unless clear indications
compel him to interpret it symbolically, whereas the amillennialist assumes
that the language is symbolic unless there is compelling reason to
understand it literally. Both approaches recognize the existence of literal and
symbolic language in the book of Revelation, but they place the burden of
proof at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Despite the difference between the two approaches, however, both of
them recognize the need to identify speci c criteria by which one can
determine whether or not the language in question is symbolic in nature.
For example, Beale identi es six “telltale signs” that a biblical author is using
gurative language:

(1) formal linking of two words of totally different meanings so that

one is compared to the other (1:20: “the seven lampstands are the
seven churches”), (2) use of a key descriptive term to alert the reader
to the presence of a comparative relationship (1:20: “e mystery of
the seven stars”; see also on 11:8: “the great city, which spiritually is
called Sodom and Egypt”), (3) the impossibility of any intelligible
literal interpretation (10:10: “I ate the book”), (4) a statement that
would be outrageously false or contradictory if taken literally (11:34:
“my two witnesses … are the two olive trees and the two
 lampstands”), (5) context that renders a literal interpretation
improbable, and (6) clear and repeated gurative use of the same
word elsewhere in the Apocalypse.76

Ironically, however, even though Beale interprets the “thousand years” in

Revelation 20 symbolically, this numerical designation does not appear to
meet any of the six criteria he proposes. At the very least, it falls manifestly
short of meeting ve of the six telltale signs suggested by Beale: (1) the
thousand years are not formally linked to another noun as a formal
metaphor; (2) there is no descriptive term which alerts the reader to the
presence of a comparative relationship; (3) the literal interpretation of the
thousand years in Revelation 20 is not impossibly unintelligible; (4) the
statement of a thousand-year reign of Christ is not outrageously false or
contradictory; and (6) there is no clear and repeated gurative use of “a
thousand years” in Revelation outside the immediate context. e only
possibility is (5): “context that renders a literal interpretation improbable.”
Regarding this h criterion, amillennialists typically point to the use of
other symbols in Revelation 20—e.g., the key, chain, serpent, bottomless pit,
etc.—as evidence that the immediate context renders a literal interpretation
of the thousand years improbable.77 As Samuel Waldron asks, “If the prison
itself and everything associated with it is symbolic, by what rationale can the
prison sentence (the 1000 years) be dogmatically asserted to be literal? e
presumption at least must be that it is gurative.”78
But the weakness of this argument is that it clearly overstates the amount
of symbolism in Revelation 20. In addition to “the abyss”—which is a
technical term referring to a literal spirit prison (see chapter 11)—there are
several features in Revelation 20:1–3 alone which should be taken literally:
“an angel” (v. 1), “heaven” (v. 1), “the devil” (v. 2), “Satan” (v. 2), the
deception (v. 3), “the nations” (v. 3), and “a short time” (v. 3). If the presence
of symbolism in Revelation 20 creates a “context that renders a literal
interpretation improbable,” on what basis does the amillennialist interpret
these elements literally? And if the context alone is not sufficient to require a
symbolic interpretation of these elements, why is it sufficient as the only
indicator of the symbolic nature of the “thousand years”?
 Furthermore, it is hermeneutically invalid to assume that if one or more
elements in a given prophecy are symbolic, then everything else in that
passage must also be symbolic. For example, even though the sword coming
from the mouth of Christ in Revelation 19:15 is symbolic, this does not
mean that the “nations” later in the same verse should be considered a
symbol of something other than actual nations.79 In the same way, the fact
that the chain in Revelation 20:1–3 is not a physical chain does not mean
that the thousand years must be gurative.
Rather than taking an all-or-nothing approach to symbolism, one must
consider each element of a given passage and determine whether it was
intended literally or guratively. To identify symbolic language in the
biblical text, it is helpful to ask three questions. First, does it possess a degree
of absurdity when taken literally?80 With symbolic language, there is
something inherent in the language itself which compels the exegete to look
beyond the literal meaning. is something is a degree of absurdity which
causes the interpreter to scratch his head and say, “But how can this be?” As
Robertson McQuilkin writes, “If the statement would obviously be
irrational, unreasonable, or absurd if taken literally, the presumption is that
it is a gure of speech.”81
Second, does it possess a degree of clarity when taken symbolically?
Symbolic language is essentially clear and understandable, vividly
portraying what it symbolizes. For this reason, a symbolic interpretation of
gurative language naturally brings clarity to the meaning of a statement
which initially appeared absurd when taken literally. Even when the initial
interpretation of a given symbol proves to be difficult, clarity oen arrives
when the true signi cance of the language is eventually identi ed.82
ird, does it fall into an established category of symbolic language?
Because gures of speech are legitimate departures from the normal use of
language, they are limited in number and can be de ned and classi ed in
accordance with known examples.83 For this reason, the interpreter must
determine whether the language in question falls into an established
category of gurative language, such as simile, metaphor, hypocatastasis,
hyperbole, personi cation, or anthropomorphism.
To illustrate the application of these questions, when Isaiah 55:12 refers
to the trees of the eld clapping their hands, the language of the verse meets
all three criteria for symbolic language—it possesses a degree of absurdity
when taken literally (trees don’t have hands); it possesses a degree of clarity
when taken symbolically (it clearly communicates a time of such joy that
even the trees will be clapping); and it falls into an established category of
symbolic language (personi cation in which a human action is attributed to
an inanimate object).
In contrast, the “thousand years” of Revelation 20 meets none of the
proposed criteria. First, there is nothing absurd or unintelligible about the
literal interpretation of the thousand years that compels the interpreter to
seek something other than the literal meaning. In fact, if God had wanted to
communicate that the imprisonment of Satan and reign of Christ would last
for a literal thousand years, how else could He have done it? What else could
He have said? Using the number one thousand was the only option available.
Second, there is absolutely no degree of clarity when the thousand years
is taken symbolically. Amillennialists typically trace the symbolic
signi cance of the number one thousand back to the number ten,84 which is
said to speak of “highest completeness” when raised to the third degree.85 As
amillennialist Anthony Hoekema explains, “Since the number ten signi es
completeness, and since a thousand is ten to the third power, we may think
of the expression ‘a thousand years’ as standing for a complete period, a very
long period of indeterminate length.”86 But why exactly would ten to the
third power signify highest completeness—why not ten to the fourth or h
degree, or even ten to the tenth degree?87 In addition, “One might question
why, in attempting to discern the meaning of the number ten, we should
investigate the meaning of seven and three instead of, say, six and four.”88 Or
one might ask why the number one thousand would drive someone to
discern the meaning of the number ten in the rst place. What exactly
would lead the interpreter to see these kinds of math equations behind
John’s use of “thousand years”?
Further ambiguity arises when one considers the amillennial view that
the thousand years represents “completeness” or “a complete period of time.”
Put simply, what exactly does this mean? What is completeness (or a
complete period of time) and how does it differ from incompleteness (or an
incomplete period of time)? To borrow the words of Cornelis Venema, what
is exactly “a period of fullness, completion and perfection so far as God’s
redemptive plan is concerned”?89 In the simplest of terms, what exactly is
being communicated by the six-fold use of “a thousand years” in Revelation
20? Most of the symbolic explanations of the thousand years introduce more
confusion than clarity.
ird, the symbolic use of the thousand years does not fall into any clear
category of symbolic language. Because amillennialists see the thousand
years as symbolizing a lengthy period of time, the most likely candidate
would seem to be the gure of speech known as hyperbole, an obvious
exaggeration to communicate a very high number.90 But John’s use of
“thousand years” cannot be understood as hyperbole if it refers to a period
of time that is already nearly two thousand years in length. e number one
thousand is not an exaggeration of the number two thousand and therefore
cannot be considered hyperbole in Revelation 20.
In the absence of any compelling reason to interpret the thousand years
symbolically, the designation should be taken at face value. erefore,
because the duration of the millennial reign of Christ in Revelation 20 is a
literal thousand years, the millennium cannot refer to the present age, which
is already nearly two thousand years in length. e millennial kingdom of
Revelation 20 must take place between the Second Coming (Rev 19) and the
eternal state (Rev 21–22), just as premillennialism teaches.

1 Darrell L. Bock, “Summary Essay,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed.
Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1999), 304–5.
2 Anthony Hoekema, e Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1979), 227; Cornelis P. Venema, e Promise of the Future (Carlisle, PA: Banner of
Truth, 2000), 327. As Kim Riddlebarger states, “e period of time between the rst
and second advent of Jesus Christ … is the same period described in Revelation 20 as a
‘thousand years’” (Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End
Times, expanded ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013], 95).
3 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 236.
4 William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1966), 4.
5 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 327.
6 G. K. Beale, e Book of Revelation, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1999), 995; Samuel E. Waldron, e End Times Made Simple: How Could Everyone Be
So Wrong About Biblical Prophecy? (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2003), 96.
7 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 324. In fact, some amillennialists insist that the
symbolic nature of Revelation is opposed to a literal understanding of the thousand
years (e.g., Henry Barclay Swete, Commentary on Revelation [Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications, 1977], 266; Dean Davis, e High King of Heaven: Discovering the Master
Keys to the Great End Time Debate [Enumclaw, WA: WinePress Publishing, 2014], 474;
Jonathan Menn, Biblical Eschatology [Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2013], 355–
56).
8 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 237; Sam Hamstra Jr., “An Idealist View of
Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1998), 121; Sydney H. T. Page, “Revelation 20 and
Pauline Eschatology,” JETS 23, no. 1 (March 1980): 32.
9 Robert B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond,
ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing), 127.
10 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 995. As Sydney Page summarizes, “Since symbolism is
used extensively throughout the Apocalypse and numbers are used in a nonliteral
sense frequently, it would be facile to insist that the number ‘one thousand’ be taken
literally in this context” (“Revelation 20 and Pauline Eschatology,” 32).
11 Stanely J. Grenz, e Millennial Maze: Sorting Out Evangelical Options (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 167.
12 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 237; cf. Beale, e Book of Revelation, 995;
Menn, Biblical Eschatology, 356–57; Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 96.
13 Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: e Amillennial Alternative (Ross-shire, Scotland:
Mentor, 2013), 456.
14 Ibid.; emphasis original.
15 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 325–26; see Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1018,
who also cites Eccl 6:6 as a temporal gurative use of the number one thousand.
16 Paul A. Rainbow, “Millennium as Metaphor in John’s Apocalypse,” WTJ 58, no. 2 (Fall
1996): 220; Donald Garlington, “Reigning with Christ: Revelation 20:1–6 and the
Question of the Millennium,” R&R 6, no. 2 (Spring 1997): 80; Venema, e Promise of
the Future, 326. According to Hamstra, “Amillennialists typically list three reasons in
support of their conviction: No other passage of Scripture mentions a thousand-year
period; a symbolic interpretation is consistent with the apocalyptic nature of the text;
and the historic creeds of Christendom do not mention a literal period between this
age and the eternal kingdom” (“An Idealist View of Revelation,” 121).
17 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 995.
18 Ibid., 1019.
19 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 227; also see Riddlebarger, A Case for
Amillennialism, 237; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 995; Leon Morris, Revelation,
TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1987), 229.
20 B. B. War eld, Biblical Doctrines (New York: Oxford University, 1929), 654. According
to War eld, “When the saints are said to live and reign with Christ a thousand years
the idea intended is that of inconceivable exaltation, security and blessedness as
beyond expression by ordinary language” (655). Although War eld was
 postmillennial, his symbolic view of the thousand years in Revelation 20 coincides
with the amillennial interpretation.
21 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 995. At the same time, Beale argues that the “primary
point of the thousand years is probably not a gurative reference to a long time but the
thematic idea of the ultimate victory of Christians who have suffered” (1018).
22 Henry Barclay Swete, Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications,
1977), 260.
23 Cox, Amillennialism Today, 4.
24 Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 96.
25 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 326.
26 Arthur H. Lewis, e Dark Side of the Millennium: e Problem of Evil in Revelation
20:1–10 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 50.
27 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 237.
28 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 995, who points to Rev 2:10 as providing insight into the
signi cance of the number one thousand in Revelation 20. According to Beale, because
the saints are promised the reward of a millennial reign in Rev 2:10 if they endure a
trial of ten days, the intensifying of ten to a thousand—along with the lengthening of
days to years—may indicate “that present momentary affliction results in greater glory
even in the intermediate state prior to eternal glory.”
29 Swete, Commentary on Revelation, 260.
30 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 237.
31 Morris, Revelation, 229.
32 Cox, Amillennialism Today, 4.
33 Abraham Kuyper, e Revelation of St. John, trans. J. Hendrik Vries (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1935), 277.
34 Davis, e High King of Heaven, 474. According to Davis, the “mystical meaning” of
the number is discovered by recognizing that ten is the number of completeness and
has been raised to the power of three, which is the number of the triune God (473–74).
35 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 326, who continues: “Just as God’s faithfulness is
perfect and never failing (unto one thousand generations), so the times within his
redemptive purposes are perfect and never failing. e most that can be concluded,
then, from the use of the number one thousand in Revelation 20 is that the period of
Satan’s binding will be great and full, not small and empty, of years. at this is the
sense of the vision is only reinforced by the contrasting language that describes Satan’s
season of rebellion as a little season, suggesting that it is a meager and limited period
of time within the will of God” (326–27).
36 Harold W. Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” in A Case for Premillennialism: A
New Consensus, eds. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1992), 248–50; Robert L. omas, Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 407–9; John F. Walvoord, “e eological Signi cance
of Revelation 20:1–6,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, eds. Stanley D.
Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 231; Paige Patterson,
Revelation, NAC vol. 39 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2012), 353; David J.
 MacLeod, “e Fourth ‘Last ing’: e Millennial Kingdom of Christ (Rev. 20:4–6),”
BSac 157, no. 625 (Jan 2000): 62–63; Robert Gromacki, “Revelation 20: A
Premillennial Analysis,” 9–13; accessed on July 20, 2014, http://www.pre-
trib.org/data/pdf/Gromacki-Revelation20APremille.pdf; Steve Sullivan,
“Premillennialism and an Exegesis of Revelation 20,” 37–41; accessed on July 20, 2014,
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Sullivan-PremillennialismAndA.pdf; Jack S. Deere,
“Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6,” BSac 135, no. 537 (Jan 1978): 70–71; Jeffrey L.
Townsend, “Is the Present Age the Millennium?,” BSac 140, no. 559 (July 1983): 213–
14.
37 Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, ECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 701;
George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1972), 262; James M. Hamilton, Jr., Revelation: e Spirit Speaks
to the Churches (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 368; Alan Johnson, “Revelation,” in
EBC, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1981), 12:585–86;
Bock, “Summary Essay,” 304–5.
38 Wayne Grudem, Systematic eology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 1131; Robert H. Mounce, e Book of Revelation, NICNT
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1977), 362; Craig A. Blaising,
“Premillennialism,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing), 227. According to Robert Mounce, “Nothing
in the immediate context favors either interpretation” (e Book of Revelation, 362).
39 Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 262.
40 Premillennialist James Hamilton writes, “I am happy to grant that this is symbolic.
One thousand is a perfectly round number and symbolizes a very long time”
(Revelation, 368). Likewise, George Eldon Ladd states, “It is difficult to understand the
thousand years for which he was bound with strict literalness in view of the obvious
symbolic use of numbers in the Revelation. A thousand equals the third power of ten
—an ideal time” (A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 262). Similarly, Grant
Osborne writes, “It is likely that this refers to an inde nite but perfect period of time,
obviously much longer than the period the Antichrist ‘reigns’ (forty-two months) but
still a symbolic period” (Revelation, 701).
41 Bock, “Summary Essay,” 304–5. According to Wayne Grudem, “If we are convinced of
[premillennialism], it really is an incidental question whether the thousand-year
period is thought to be a literal thousand years or simply a long period of time of
indeterminate duration” (Systematic eology, 1131). Likewise, Alan Johnson believes
“it is not of primary importance whether the years are actual 365-day years or
symbolic of a shorter or longer period of bliss enjoyed by believers as they reign with
Christ on earth (cf. 5:10 with 11:15; 22:15)” (“Revelation,” 585–86). In a similar way,
Darrell Bock writes, “Is it not possible to see the thousand years as symbolic of, yet still
referring to, an intermediate period that would be an earthly, ‘millennial,’ intermediate
kingdom? In other words, the issue of the potential symbolism of the number does not
really answer the question whether the deliverance portrayed in Revelation 20:4–6
precludes an intermediate kingdom. If one has resurrection bracketing the beginning
 and end of what is described here, then it is possible to have an intermediate stage
regardless of how long it lasts” (“Summary Essay,” 304).
42 Walvoord, “eological Signi cance,” 231; cf. John F. Walvoord, Revelation, rev. and
ed. Philip E. Rawley and Mark Hitchcock (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2011), 28–30;
MacLeod, “e Fourth ‘Last ing,’” 63.
43 omas, Revelation 8–22, 408. Later omas writes that “nonsymbolic usage of
numbers is the rule” and that “con rmation of a single number in Revelation as
symbolic is impossible” (408–9).
44 Sullivan, “Premillennialism,” 37–39, who sees 13 such exceptions.
45 Ibid., 37–40.
46 Ibid., 38. For further discussion of these and other numbers in Revelation, see
Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” 249; omas, Revelation 8–22, 408–9;
MacLeod, “e Fourth ‘Last ing,’” 63.
47 Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” 249; MacLeod, “e Fourth ‘Last ing,’” 63;
Sullivan, “Premillennialism,” 39–40; Gromacki, “Revelation 20,” 13. According to
Sullivan, in each of these verses “one nds nothing in the text which would compel the
reader to understand this to be anything other than a conventional use of numbers”
(“Premillennialism,” 40).
48 Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” 249. In addition, premillennialists oen
point out that whenever the word “year” is used with a number in Scripture, the
designation always refers to literal years (Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–
6,” 70; MacLeod, “e Fourth ‘Last ing,’” 63; Sullivan, “Premillennialism,” 39;
Gromacki, “Revelation 20,” 13). is, of course, is disputed by amillennialists.
49 At the same time, some premillennial arguments have been less than compelling. For
example, according to some premillennialists, the fact that John repeats the number six
times (vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) argues in favor of a literal interpretation of the thousand years
(Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” 249; omas, Revelation 8–22, 409; Charles
L. Feinberg, Millennialism: e Two Major Views, 3rd ed. [Chicago: Moody Press,
1980], 333). But if John intended the designation to be understood symbolically, it
would make sense for him to repeat it several times to refer to the same period of time.
An additional less-than-compelling argument comes from premillennialist John
Walvoord, who says the duration of the millennial reign must be literal because John
mentions the thousand years in both the vision (vv. 4–5) and his interpretation of the
vision (v. 6) (“eological Signi cance,” 232). But as G. K. Beale counters, this
argument “assumes that gures of speech cannot be used in interpretive comments”
(e Book of Revelation, 1017).
50 According to Philip Jenson, the word “oen refers to a thousand, understood
either as a precise or round number” (Philip P. Jenson, “ ,” in NIDOTTE, ed.
Willem A. VanGemeren [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1997], 1:416; emphasis
added).
51 Storms, Kingdom Come, 456.
52 When Storms claims that all non-temporal uses of the number “one thousand” in
Scripture are gurative (Kingdom Come, 456), he is misclassifying round numbers as
 symbolic. In his thorough study of biblical numerology, John Davis refers to the
“conventional use” of numbers as “that which is concerned primarily with the
mathematical value of the number.” According to Davis, “Numbers used in this
manner are designed to denote either a speci c or a general mathematical quantity”
(John J. Davis, Biblical Numerology [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1968], 49). When the
biblical writer believed it was unnecessary to provide the reader with exact detailed
enumerations or sums, sometimes he used a general mathematical quantity, a rounded
estimate of the total number (ibid., 51–52). But this use of round numbers falls in the
broader category of the conventional use of numbers, which is not symbolic but rather
is primarily concerned with the mathematical value of the number (ibid.).
53 At the same time, because the “1,000 silver dishes” in Ezra 1:9 and “1,000 other
articles” in Ezra 1:10 were speci cally counted out by Mithredath the treasurer (Ezra
1:8), one can only assume that these two uses of the number were indeed intended
with arithmetical precision.
54 Similarly, when Mark writes that “ ve thousand men” were fed by Jesus (Mark 6:44),
the fact that this number is not intended “with arithmetical precision” hardly means
that the number ve thousand is symbolic of some spiritual reality and therefore
should not be taken “literally.”
55 Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, NAC vol. 14 (Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1993), 315.
56 Tremper Longman, e Book of Ecclesiastes, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1997), 172; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Ecclesiastes: Total Life (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1979), 81; F. Delitzsch, e Book of Ecclesiastes, trans. M. G. Easton,
Commentary on the Old Testament (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 6:720.
57 Garrett refers to the hundred children (Eccl 6:3) and the two thousand years of life
(Eccl 6:6) as “oriental exaggerations” (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 315) and
Longman considers them “hyperbole” (e Book of Ecclesiastes, 172), but the
references are clearly hypothetical and yet literal. In contrast, hyperbole would exist if
Solomon referred to a man who did live to the age of 2,000 years (as a deliberate and
obvious exaggeration of the man’s very old age).
58 Steven J. Lawson, Psalms 76–150, HOTC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers,
2006), 82–83.
59 omas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, NAC vol. 37 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman,
2003), 379.
60 In a similar way, the psalmist’s point in Ps 84:10 is that one (literal) day in God’s courts
is better than a (literal) thousand days in any other place. ere is nothing in any of
these verses—Ps 90:4, 2 Pet 3:8, or Ps 84:10—that compels the interpreter to seek a
meaning other than the literal one. In his discussion of the duration of the millennium,
Venema cites Exod 20:5–6, Deut 7:9, Ps 50:10–11, Ps 84:10, Ps 90:4, and 2 Pet 3:8 as
evidence “that the number one thousand is oen used in the Scriptures to refer to an
extensive period of time” (e Promise of the Future, 326). But only three of these
passages refer to periods of time—Ps 84:10, Ps 90:4, and 2 Pet 3:8—and the number is
literal in all three passages (as discussed above). Of the three remaining passages, Exod
 20:5–6 can be dismissed because it uses the inde nite plural “thousands” rather than
the speci c number “one thousand.” erefore, only in Deut 7:9 and Ps 50:10 is the
number used to indicate an inde nite amount, although the gure could be
understood literally in Ps 50:10.
61 To argue for a gurative interpretation of the “thousand years” in Ps 90:4 and 2 Pet 3:8,
amillennialist G. K. Beale says that early Jewish texts such as Sir 18:9–11 and 2 Bar
48:12–13 interpret the use of the number in Ps 90:4 symbolically (e Book of
Revelation, 1018). However, even though Sir 18:9–11 and 2 Bar 48:12–13 set forth the
same basic truth as Ps 90:4, neither of these passages provides an actual interpretation
of Ps 90:4, so Beale’s argument is not compelling. In addition, even if these passages
allude to Ps 90:4, Sir 18:9–11 and 2 Bar 48:12–13 use inde nite terms rather than the
speci c designation “thousand years.” e basic truth taught in these three passages
can be communicated either with speci c terms (Ps 90:4) or with general terms (Sir
18:9–11; 2 Bar 48:12–13), without the latter cancelling out the former. e use of
general terms in Sir 18:9–11 and 2 Bar 48:12–13 does not constitute a gurative
interpretation of the “thousand years” in Ps 90:4, and therefore Beale’s argument
carries no weight.
62 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1019.
63 James C. VanderKam, e Book of Jubilees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001),
133–34.
64 is use of inde nite expressions of time is found elsewhere in Revelation as well: “for
a little while longer” (e[ti crovnon mikrovn) (6:11), “a short time” (ojlivgon kairo;n)
(12:12), and “a little while” (ojlivgon) (17:10).
65 Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” 249; omas, Revelation 8–22, 408;
Townsend, “Is the Present Age the Millennium?,” 214; Sullivan, “Premillennialism,” 40.
As Feinberg observes, the Greek language knows well how to express “aer a long
time” (metav … polu;n crovnon) (Matt 25:19) (Millennialism, 333).
66 George Eldon Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1952), 148. In the words of Jack Deere, one cannot “secure a
symbolic sense for ta; civlia e[th merely by repeating the shibboleth that Revelation is
a symbolic book, for not everything is symbolic in the book, and one must give
reasons why a certain passage is symbolic” (“Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6,”
70).
67 Townsend, “Is the Present Age the Millennium?,” 213.
68 Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics, 3rd ed.
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1970), 123.
69 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Back Toward the Future: Hints for Interpreting Biblical Prophecy
(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1989), 43.
70 Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 123; emphasis original.
71 Davis, Biblical Numerology, 155.
72 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 52, where he calls for turning the literal approach on its
head.
73 Ibid., 1017.
74 Ibid., 52. According to Beale, this approach is required by John’s use of shmaivnw
(“signify”) in Rev 1:1, which is said to mean: “to communicate by symbols” (50–52,
1017).
75 Ibid., 52.
76 Ibid., 57; emphasis original. According to Beale, at least three forms of gurative
comparison occur in Revelation: formal metaphor, simile, and hypocatastasis. For a
similar list of tests by which the intention of the biblical author may be determined, see
G. B. Caird, e Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: e Westminster
Press, 1980), 186–97.
77 Grenz, e Millennial Maze, 167; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 237; Beale,
e Book of Revelation, 995; Menn, Biblical Eschatology, 356–57; Waldron, e End
Times Made Simple, 96.
78 Waldron, e End Times Made Simple, 96; emphasis original.
79 Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Colorado Springs: David C Cook, 1991), 186–
87.
80 is rst question aligns with the third and fourth criteria proposed by Beale: “the
impossibility of any intelligible literal interpretation” and “a statement that would be
outrageously false or contradictory if taken literally” (e Book of Revelation, 57).
Caird, e Language and Imagery of the Bible, 188, refers to this as “impossible
literality.”
81 Robertson McQuilkin, Understanding and Applying the Bible, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1992), 170–71. As McQuilkin writes, “‘I am the door,’ and ‘you are the salt’ are
obviously irrational if taken literally” (171).
82 For example, the “great chain” in Rev 20:1–3 possesses both a degree of absurdity when
taken literally (How can a physical chain bind a spiritual being?) and a degree of clarity
when taken symbolically (i.e., it clearly communicates the immobilization of Satan).
83 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward an Exegetical eology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and
Teaching (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1981), 122.
84 E.g., Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 227; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism,
237; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 995; Morris, Revelation, 229.
85 Richard C. H. Lenski, e Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2008), 577.
86 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 227.
87 Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6,” 70.
88 Millard J. Erickson, A Basic Guide to Eschatology: Making Sense of the Millennium
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 84.
89 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 326. According to Venema, “Just as God’s
faithfulness is perfect and never failing (unto one thousand generations), so the times
within his redemptive purposes are perfect and never failing.” But what does it mean
that this time period is “perfect” and “never failing”? Conversely, what would it mean
for a period of time to be “imperfect” or “failing”? Another amillennialist refers to the
“thousand years” as “the complete time that God has determined” (Morris, Revelation,
 229), but what meaning does this actually communicate? What contribution does it
make to John’s description of his vision? How could the “thousand years” be anything
but the amount of time that God has determined?
90 Although he does not use the word “hyperbole,” this appears to be the view of
postmillennialist David Chilton, who likens the symbolic interpretation of the
“thousand years” to the hyperbolic statement, “I’ve told you a million times!” (David
Chilton, e Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation [Fort Worth,
TX: Dominion Press, 1987], 507). Unlike the “thousand years” in Revelation 20,
however, the use of “a million times” in Chilton’s example clearly possesses all three of
the proposed criteria for symbolic language: (1) it possesses a degree of absurdity when
taken literally, for no one has ever said anything a million times; (2) it possesses a
degree of clarity when taken symbolically, for it effectively communicates that the
speaker believes that he has told his hearer this information many, many times; and (3)
it falls into an established category of symbolic language, the gure of speech known as
hyperbole.
 Chapter 14

e Chronology of John’s
Visions

INTRODUCTION

The crux of the debate over the timing of the millennium is ultimately
found in the chronological relationship between Revelation 19 and 20. e
key question is whether (a) the millennium of Revelation 20 follows the
Second Coming in Revelation 19:11–21 (the sequential view) or (b)
Revelation 20:1–6 goes back in time as a recapitulation of the period
between the rst and second comings of Christ (the recapitulation view).1
Premillennialists take the sequential view and insist that the millennium of
Revelation 20 will occur aer the Second Coming of Revelation 19; whereas
amillennialists take the recapitulation view and insist that Revelation 20:1
returns to the beginning of the present age, so that the millennium is taking
place here and now.
e signi cance of this question is acknowledged on both sides of the
debate. As amillennialist Anthony Hoekema observes, “If … one thinks of
Revelation 20 as setting forth what follows chronologically aer what has
been described in chapter 19, one would indeed conclude that the
millennium of Revelation 20:1–6 will follow the return of Christ.”2 In other
words, if the events of Revelation 19–20 will unfold chronologically, the
millennial kingdom will occur aer the Second Coming and this passage
teaches premillennialism. Only by denying the sequential relationship of the
events in Revelation 19–20, then, is the amillennialist able to reject the
existence of a millennial kingdom between the Second Coming and the
eternal state.
e purpose of this chapter is to examine whether clear and compelling
evidence exists for a chronological break in Revelation 20:1 so that the
millennial kingdom of verses 1–6 coincides with the present age. is
examination will demonstrate not only that there is clear contextual
evidence for the sequential interpretation of Revelation 19–20, but also that
the amillennial arguments for recapitulation provide no convincing reason
to depart from the straightforward, chronological reading of these chapters.

THE SEQUENTIAL VIEW OF PREMILLENNIALISM

According to premillennialism, nothing in Revelation 20:1 indicates a
chronological break in the events that John describes. erefore, the most
natural way to read Revelation 19–20 is to see a sequential relationship in
which the events described in chapter 20 follow those of chapter 19. As
Grant Osborne explains:

ere is a distinct progression throughout chapters 19–22, from the

return of Christ to the millennium to the nal judgment and nally
to the descent of the new heavens and new earth. e recapitulation
theory does not do justice to this progression and to the difference of
details at each level.3

In addition to the absence of any clear indication that Revelation 20:1 takes
the reader back to start of the present age, the sequential view of Revelation
19 and 20 is supported by a number of key features in the immediate
context.

e Introductory Kai; Ei\don

One of the most common premillennial arguments for the sequential view
of Revelation 19 and 20 is John’s introductory formula kai; ei\don (“and I
saw”) at the beginning of 20:1.4 is formula is used 32 times in Revelation
—seven of those occurring in chapters 19–21 (19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11; 21:1)
—usually to introduce the next vision being described by the apostle.
According to Harold Hoehner, “ough these words are not as forceful a
chronological marker as ‘aer these things I saw’ (meta tauta eidon; 4:1; 7:9;
15:5; 18:1), or ‘aer these things I heard’ (meta tauta ēkousa; 19:1), they do
show chronological progression.”5 In other words, when John uses kai;
ei\don (“and I saw”) to introduce his vision of the thousand years in
Revelation 20:1, this establishes a sequential relationship between the events
described in chapters 19 and 20.6
In response, amillennialists argue that the introductory kai; ei\don (“and
I saw”) certainly indicates the sequence in which John received his visions,
but not necessarily the historical sequence of the events described in those
visions.7 For this reason, amillennialists insist that the presence of kai; ei\don
is not relevant to the question of historical progress between Revelation
19:11–21 and 20:1–3, for the only critical issue is the content of the visions
themselves.8
Amillennialists have a point, for it does appear that the chronological
sequence of the events in John’s visions cannot be proven on the basis of kai;
ei\don alone.9 is can be seen in Revelation 20 itself, for even though the
vision in verses 4–6 is introduced with the formula kai;ei\don, it describes
the same thousand-year period of time portrayed earlier in verses 1–3, albeit
from a different perspective. For this reason, it cannot be said that John’s
introductory formula alone proves a chronological progression of events.
At the same time, because kai; ei\don almost always indicates historical
progression in Revelation—and because recapitulation is clearly the
exception and not the rule—the burden of proof falls on those who insist on
a chronological break at a given point. In the case of recapitulation in
Revelation 20:4–6, for example, the repetition of the “thousand years” makes
it clear that the second vision portrays the same time period as 20:1–3. But
in the absence of this kind of explicit indication of recapitulation in
Revelation 20:1, historical progress should be assumed unless the content of
the visions demands a return to the beginning of the present age.10

e Content of the Visions

As even some amillennialists recognize, the chronological relationship
between the visions in Revelation must ultimately be demonstrated from the
content of those visions.11 For this reason, the strongest argument for the
sequential view (and against the recapitulation view) is found in the content
of the two visions in Revelation 20:1–6. According to amillennialists, the
thousand years in this passage coincides with the present age and therefore
does not represent an intermediate kingdom between the Second Coming
(Rev 19:11–21) and the eternal state (Rev 21–22). But the content of the
visions themselves precludes the possibility that this time period represents
the present age, and therefore Revelation 20 must not recapitulate the
previous chapter.
In the rst vision, an angel binds Satan and seals him in the abyss for a
thousand years (Rev 20:1–3). Because it is impossible to reconcile the
present-day activities of the devil with his incarceration in the abyss, the
binding of Satan cannot be a present reality and therefore must be yet future.
In the second vision, the saints experience a physical resurrection and live to
reign with Christ for the thousand years (Rev 20:4–6), aer which
unbelievers are resurrected unto the nal judgment (Rev 20:11–15). Because
Revelation 20 depicts two physical resurrections separated by the thousand
years, this time period cannot be the present age and must represent an
intermediate kingdom between the Second Coming and the eternal state.
For this reason, all of the previous arguments that the binding of Satan is
future (not present) and that the rst resurrection is physical (not spiritual)
simultaneously function as compelling arguments in favor of the sequential
view of Revelation 19–20. e content of Revelation 20:1–6 is simply
incompatible with the amillennial view that this passage is a description of
the current age, and therefore the events of chapter 20 must follow those of
chapter 19.

e Judgment of the “Unholy Trinity”

e third argument for the premillennial view is that the overall ow of
thought in Revelation 12–20—speci cally concerning the judgment of the
“unholy trinity”—points to a sequential relationship between Revelation 19
and 20.12 In Revelation 12:9, Satan is cast down to the earth where he begins
his work of deceiving the whole world. To carry out this deception, Satan
enlists the beast of the sea (13:1–10) and the beast of the earth (13:11–18),
who is later identi ed as “the false prophet” (16:13; 19:20; 20:10). e three
members of this “unholy trinity”—Satan, the beast, and the false prophet—
are successful in their attempts to deceive, but they are eventually defeated
by Christ, who returns to earth, conquers them, and casts them into the lake
of re in Revelation 19:11–20:10.13
At the conclusion of Revelation 19, however, only two-thirds of the
“unholy trinity”—the beast and the false prophet—has been defeated and
cast into the lake of re. So what about the fate of Satan? is question is
answered starting in the rst verse of Revelation 2014—Satan is imprisoned
in the abyss while Jesus reigns on the earth (vv. 1–6); he is released for a
short time to resume his work of deception (vv. 7–8); and he is defeated (v.
9) and thrown into the lake of re, where the entire unholy trinity is
tormented for eternity (v. 10). In this way, Christ’s victory over the beast, the
false prophet, and Satan himself is complete.
e relevant point here is that the fate of Satan—the remaining one-
third of the “unholy trinity”—is exactly what the reader would be expecting
(and therefore waiting for) at the beginning of Revelation 20.15 As Harold
Hoehner explains:

Revelation 20:1–10 serves as the nal piece of the puzzle in the

defeat and ultimate punishment of the utmost enemy of Christ and
His saints. erefore, in order to make sense of the culminating
victory of Christ and conclusive defeat of Satan, Revelation 20:1–10
is a logical and chronological necessity to chapters 12–19.16

In this way, the judgment of the “unholy trinity” in Revelation 12–20

supports the sequential view of the chronology of John’s visions.
William Webb, who sees this as one of the strongest arguments for the
sequential view, summarizes it well:

roughout the book of Revelation, the beast, the false prophet, and
the Dragon/Satan are portrayed as an evil trilogy, a devilish troika,
seeking to destroy the people of God. As the story-line unfolds, the
rider on the white horse and his armies have attacked the rebellious
 armies led by the evil trilogy. By the end of chapter 19 the armies of
the kings of the earth have been destroyed and two of the key leaders
(the beast and false prophet) have been captured. Now the
anticipated question which the narrative raises is, what will happen
to Satan, the “leading gure” of the triad? Will he too be captured?
Sure enough, Revelation 20:1–3 depicts just that, the capture of
Satan. ere is no need to stop the narrative ow at the end of
chapter 19 and retrack.17

erefore, as Craig Blomberg argues, “No matter how many ashbacks or

disruptions of chronological sequence one might want to argue for
elsewhere in Revelation, it makes absolutely no sense to put one in between
Revelation 19 and 20 as [amillennalists] must do.”18

e Use of “Any Longer” (Rev 20:3)

When the apostle John writes that Satan will be sealed in the abyss “so that
he would not deceive the nations any longer [e[ti]” (Rev 20:3), his use of e[ti
with the negative particle mh; indicates the interruption of something already
taking place.19 Because the deception from which Satan is prevented in
Revelation 20:1–3 was already taking place prior to his incarceration in the
abyss, John’s use of e[ti (“any longer”) in Revelation 20:3 points backward in
time and connects this vision to the previous context in such a way that
indicates a sequential relationship.20
More speci cally, Revelation 20:3 indicates the termination of deceptive
activity described throughout Revelation 12–19.21 In Revelation 12:7–12,
Satan—who is described as the one “who deceives the whole world” (v. 9)—
is cast out of heaven and thrown down to earth, and he begins working in
conjunction with the beast and the false prophet to carry out his deception
of the nations. is ongoing work of deception is emphasized throughout
Revelation 12–19 (12:9; 13:14; 16:13–16; 18:23; 19:19–20), being highlighted
by the repetition of the verb “to deceive” (planavw).22 But this deception of
the world comes to a stop when Jesus returns to earth (19:11–19), the beast
and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of re (19:20), and Satan
himself is locked in the abyss “so that he would not deceive the nations any
longer” (20:3).
Because Revelation 12–19 repeatedly highlights the satanic deception of
the nations that will take place throughout the second half of the
Tribulation, John’s reference to Satan no longer deceiving the nations while
in the abyss points to a chronological reading of Revelation 19 and 20.23 is
would be similar to a narrative which contained several chapters describing
how a dog barked at a cat, followed by a chapter which then described how a
man locked the dog in the garage “so that it would not bark at the cat any
longer.” e most natural way to read such a narrative would be to see this
latest chapter as describing an event that took place subsequent to the events
described in the previous chapters. In the same way, the most natural way to
read the visionary narrative in Revelation is to see chapter 20 as taking place
subsequent to the events described in chapters 12–19.

e Description of the Lake of Fire

A fourth argument for the premillennial view is that the description of the
lake of re in Revelation 20:10 points to a sequential relationship between
chapters 19 and 20.24 At the time of the Second Coming, prior to the
thousand years, the beast and the false prophet will be “thrown alive into the
lake of re which burns with brimstone” (Rev 19:20). en, at the
conclusion of the thousand years, Satan will be “thrown into the lake of re
and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also” (Rev 20:10;
emphasis added). In light of the progression of these descriptions, the most
natural way to read Revelation 19–20 is to see a chronological sequence in
which (a) the beast and false prophet are cast into the lake of re (Rev
19:20); (b) Satan is bound and sealed in the abyss for a thousand years (Rev
20:1–6); (c) Satan is released aer the thousand years and defeated by re
from heaven (Rev 20:7–9); and then (d) Satan is thrown into the lake of re
where the beast and false prophet already are (Rev 20:10).
In his response this argument, amillennialist Sam Storms insists that
even if Revelation 20:10 indicates that the beast and the false prophet were
already in the lake of re when Satan was consigned to it, “this need only
imply that aer the war the beast and false prophet were rst judged and
cast into the lake of re, a judgment and fate then immediately applied to
Satan.”25 In other words, isn’t it possible that the beast and the false prophet
were cast into the lake of re rst and that Satan was consigned there
immediately aerward, so that all three were thrown into the lake of re
within moments of each other? Premillennialist William Webb
acknowledges that the time lapse between the two consignments to the lake
of re is not speci ed in verse 10, so it may have been moments or it may
have been a lengthy interval. But as Webb argues:

If Rev 20:7–10 is the same battle as the parousia battle of chapter 19

and all three players in the triad get captured in the same battle (as
amillennialists suggest), one might ask why John does not simply
have all three players thrown into the lake of re at the same time….
From a (straight) recapitulation perspective one would expect in Rev
20:10 to read something like, “Aer the battle of Gog and Magog,
Satan was thrown into the lake of re along with the beast and false
prophet.”26

Instead, the consignment of the beast and the false prophet to the lake of re
is separated from the consignment of Satan to the lake of re in two
signi cant ways: (1) in Revelation 19:20 only the beast and the false prophet
are consigned to the lake of re, and (2) in Rev 20:10 only Satan is consigned
to the lake of re, which is then described as the place where the beast and
false prophet had previously been consigned. e recapitulation view has a
difficult time explaining the separation of these two consignments, whereas
it ts very naturally with the sequential view in which the beast and false
prophet are consigned at the time of the Second Coming (Rev 19:20) and
Satan is consigned aer the thousand years (20:10).27

e Future Tense of Basileuvsousin in Verse 6

As a nal argument for the sequential view, some premillennialists observe
that in describing the reign of the saints with Christ in Revelation 20, the
apostle John switches from the aorist-tense verb ejbasivluesan (“they
reigned”) in verse 4 to the future-tense verb basileuvsousin, (“they will
reign”) in verse 6.28 Because the beatitude in verse 6 appears to be an
interpretation of the vision described in verses 4–5, the future tense of
basileuvsousin supports the view that the reign of the saints for a thousand
years must be future (cf. Rev 5:10), and therefore that the events of chapter
20 must follow those of chapter 19.29 Although this argument is not
conclusive,30 the recapitulation view does have difficulty explaining the
change from the aorist to the future tense of basileuvw in Revelation 20:4–6.

THE RECAPITULATION VIEW OF AMILLENNIALISM

Amillennialists argue that “the order of the visions in Revelation need not
re ect the historical relationship of the events in those visions; it need only
re ect the sequence in which John has presented the visions he received.”31
ey further argue that the visions in the book Revelation are arranged
topically rather than chronologically,32 and that each of these visions
functions like a different camera angle depicting the present age from a
unique perspective.33 is literary technique is known as recapitulation.
For many amillennialists, recognizing the use of recapitulation in
Revelation is part of a larger interpretive approach called progressive
parallelism. is approach was popularized by William Hendriksen34 and
subsequently adopted to varying degrees by other leading amillennialists.35
According to this view, “the book of Revelation consists of seven sections
which run parallel to each other, each of which depicts … the time of
Christ’s rst coming to the time of his second coming.”36 ese seven
sections—chapters 1–3, 4–7, 8–11, 12–14, 15–16, 17–19, and 20–22—are
parallel to each other, but they also reveal a certain amount of eschatological
progress, with the nal section advancing further into the future than the
others.37
With this approach, because Revelation 20–22 comprises the last of the
seven sections, Revelation 20:1 does not follow the return of Christ in
Revelation 19, but rather takes the reader back to the beginning of the
present age.38 In this way, the visions of Revelation 20:1–10 are said to set
forth yet another complimentary portrayal of the events between the rst
and second comings of Christ. For this reason, the visions recorded in
Revelation 19:11–21 and 20:1–10 “should be read as parallel descriptions of
the same time period.”39 e millennial kingdom of Revelation 20, in other
words, is a present reality.

e Case for Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1–10

To make their case for recapitulation, amillennialists appeal to several
related arguments: (a) the discrepancy between Revelation 19:11–21 and
20:1–3; (b) the casting down of Satan in Revelation 12:7–11 and 20:1–6; (c)
the nal battle in Revelation 16:12–16, 19:11–21, and 20:7–10; (d) the theme
of angelic ascent/descent in Revelation; and (e) the chiastic structure of
Revelation 17–22.

e Discrepancy Between Revelation 19:11–21 and 20:1–

3
e initial argument for recapitulation points to the apparent discrepancy
between Revelation 19:11–21 and 20:1–3 if those visions are read in
historical sequence.40 According to amillennialist R. Fowler White, “It
makes no sense to speak of protecting the nations from deception by Satan
in 20:1–3 aer they have just been both deceived by Satan (16:13–16, cf.
19:19–20) and destroyed by Christ at his return in 19:11–21 (cf. 16:15a,
19).”41 If all of Christ’s enemies are destroyed in Revelation 19:11–21—and if
Revelation 20:1–6 describes events subsequent to that destruction—there
will be no one le for Satan to deceive in Revelation 20:3.42
Moreover, if Revelation 19 and 20 sets forth a sequence of events—and if
all the nations are destroyed at the end of chapter 19—where do all the
unbelievers come from in Revelation 20:8 when Satan deceives the nations
aer his release? According to Riddlebarger, the revolt of Revelation 20:7–10
is especially problematic for premillennialism:

Who are these people who revolt against Christ? Who are these who
are consumed by re? Are these people in unresurrected bodies? If
so, where did they come from? How do they pass through the
judgment at the beginning of the millennial age? Are these people
the redeemed? Such is unthinkable. e presence of evil in the
 millennial age is a problem from which all forms of premillennialism
cannot escape.43

According to amillennialists, this discrepancy introduced by the

chronological reading of Revelation 19 and 20 supports the likelihood of
recapitulation in Revelation 20:1.44
Premillennialists generally respond to this objection in one of two ways.
First, some premillennialists claim that not all unbelievers will be destroyed
at the Second Coming, and therefore the nations will consist of (or arise
from) unbelieving, non-glori ed survivors of the battle in Revelation 19:17–
19.45 But this view appears difficult to sustain, because even though there is
clear contextual evidence that not all unbelievers will be killed in the battle
of Revelation 19:17–19,46 Matthew 25:31–46 con rms that any surviving
unbelievers will not inherit the millennial kingdom. As Paul Feinberg
observes:

e complete elimination of the wicked from entrance into the

kingdom rests not just on the destruction of the wicked at the
descent of Christ at the Second Advent, but also on the separation of
the sheep from the goats in the judgment that follows (Matt. 25:31–
46). While many unbelievers will be slain at Christ’s return, two
judgments follow to root out all who remain.47

For this reason, it appears difficult to defend the view that some unbelievers
will survive the battle of Revelation 19:17–19 and enter the millennial
kingdom.
e more likely explanation comes from those premillennialists who see
the nations arising from the “the descendants of the tribulation saints who
survive the tribulation and enter the millennium in their natural bodies.”48
According to this view, the battle of Revelation 19:19–21 and the subsequent
judgment of the nations will indeed result in the death of all unbelievers. But
some believers who are converted during the Tribulation will survive the
persecution and enter the millennial kingdom in non-glori ed bodies.
During the millennium, these individuals will produce offspring who will
continue in unbelief and eventually give rise to the nations that rebel against
Christ aer the thousand years.49
In the millennial kingdom, the rate of population growth “will be far
higher than ever before because physical death will be the exception rather
than the rule throughout this ideal period (cf. Isa. 65:20).”50 erefore, a new
set of nations will come to exist on earth in a relatively short period of
time.51 In this way, even though the nations are destroyed in Revelation
19:21, they will be reconstituted later under the messianic King (Isa 2:4;
11:10–16; Zech 14:16–21), consisting of surviving believers and their
descendants at the end of the millennium.52 e unbelievers among the
nations will remain undeceived from external sources until the thousand
years are completed (Rev 20:3),53 at which time Satan will be released to
deceive them and gather them for the nal battle (Rev 20:7–9).54

e Casting Down of Satan in Revelation 12:7–11 and

20:1–6
A second argument for recapitulation is found in Revelation 12:7–11, which
describes the casting down of Satan in terms very similar to those of
Revelation 20:1–6.55 Although the details between the two passages are not
identical at every point, the parallels are said to “suggest that they depict the
same events and mutually interpret one another.”56 e following seven
parallels have been highlighted by amillennialists:

Revelation 12:7–11 Revelation 20:1–6

1. heavenly scene (v. 7) 1. heavenly scene (v. 1)
2. angelic battle against Satan 2. presupposed angelic battle with Satan
and his host (vv. 7–8) (v. 2)
3. Satan cast to earth (v. 9) 3. Satan cast into the abyss (v. 3)
4. the angels’ evil opponent 4. the angels’ evil opponent called “the
called “the great dragon, dragon, that ancient serpent, who is
… that ancient serpent the devil, or Satan,” restrained from
 called the devil or Satan, “deceiving the nations anymore” (vv.
who leads the whole world 2–3), to be released later “to deceive
astray” (v. 9) the nations in the four corners of the
earth” (vv. 3, 7–8)
5. Satan “is lled with fury, 5. Satan to be “set free for a short time”
because he knows that his aer his imprisonment (v. 3)
time is short” (v. 12)
6. Satan’s fall, resulting in the 6. Satan’s fall, resulting in the kingdom of
kingdom of Christ and his Christ and his saints (v. 4)
saints (v. 10)
7. the saints’ kingship, based 7. the saints’ kingship, based not only on
not only on the fall of the fall of Satan but also on their
Satan and Christ’s victory faithfulness even to death because of
but also on the saints’ their “testimony for Jesus and because
faithfulness even to death of the word of God” (v. 4)
in holding to “the word of
their testimony” (v. 11)

Figure 1. Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 229.57

According to amillennialists, the obvious parallelism between Revelation 12

and 20—and especially the verbal connection in the fourfold identi cation
of the dragon in 12:9 and 20:2–3—indicates that both passages are
describing the present age.58 For this reason, the casting down of Satan in
Revelation 12:7–11 is seen as evidence for the present-day ful llment of
Revelation 20:1–3.59
e problem with this argument is that it focuses on super cial points of
similarity between Revelation 12:7–11 and 20:1–6 while ignoring differences
between the two passages which make it impossible for them to be
describing the same events or time period. Suppose a news magazine were
to publish two separate articles about the president of the United States. e
rst article described how the president ew on Air Force One from
Washington D.C. to London where he spent the day giving a number of
public speeches. A subsequent article described how he ew on Air Force
One from London to Hawaii where he spent two weeks vacationing with his
family out of the public eye. e discerning reader would not assume that
the two articles were describing the same ight simply because they both
referred to how (a) the president of the United States (b) ew across the
ocean (c) on Air Force One. Aer all, the point of departure is different, the
destination is different, and the substance of the trip is different. e two
accounts could not possibly be describing the same ight across the ocean.
So it is with the parallels between Revelation 12 and Revelation 20—
even though both passages refer to a casting down of Satan, three critical
differences preclude the possibility that they refer to the same casting
down.60 First, the origin and the destination of the casting down of Satan are
completely different.61 In Revelation 12 Satan is cast down from heaven to
earth, but in Revelation 20 he is cast down from earth into the abyss. In
Revelation 12, Satan no longer has access to heaven because he is con ned
to earth, but in Revelation 20 he no longer has access to earth because he is
con ned in the abyss. Unless one is prepared to equate the abyss and the
earth, this cannot be the same casting down of Satan. He is on earth in
Revelation 12 and in the abyss in Revelation 20, but, as discussed in chapter
11, he cannot be in both places at the same time.
A second major difference is that the expulsion of Satan from heaven in
Revelation 12 has the opposite effect as the casting of Satan into the abyss in
Revelation 20.62 When Satan is cast down to earth in chapter 12, it results in
increased deception of the nations (Rev 12:9; cf. 13:14; 16:14; 18:23; 19:20),
but when Satan is cast into the abyss in Revelation 20, it prevents him from
deceiving the nations any longer (Rev 20:3). How can Satan be described as
the one “who deceives the whole world” (Rev 12:9) while simultaneously
being sealed in the abyss “so that he would not deceive the nations any
longer” (Rev 20:3)? Satan cannot deceive the whole world (Rev 12:9) and yet
be unable to deceive the nations of the world (Rev 20:3) at the same time,
and therefore the two descriptions are incompatible.
A nal difference involves the short amount of time given to Satan in
both passages. At the end of Revelation 12:12, John describes Satan being
cast down to the earth, “having great wrath, knowing that he has only a
short time.” In Revelation 20:3, John writes that aer Satan is locked in the
abyss for a thousand years, “he must be released for a short time.” As seen in
#5 in the chart above, this parallel—“a short time” (ojlivgon kairo;n) in 12:12
and “a short time” (mikro;n crovnon) in 20:3—is cited by those who argue for
the amillennial view.
e problem is that these two brief periods of time do not line up
chronologically. In Revelation 12, Satan is cast down to earth for “a short
time,” but in Revelation 20 he is cast into the abyss for a long time (the
thousand years), and then aerward he is released for “a short time.” If the
amillennial view is correct, the short time in Revelation 12 coincides with
the long time in Revelation 20 (the thousand years), which is then followed
by a short time.63 e supposed parallel between the “short time” in
Revelation 12 and the “short time” in Revelation 20 offers no support for the
amillennial view and actually presents a signi cant difficulty for it.
erefore, even though Satan is indeed cast down in both visions, the
destination of Satan, the result of him being cast down, and the duration of
his restriction (either on earth or in the abyss) are utterly incompatible. For
this reason, Revelation 12:7–11 and 20:1–6 must not portray the same events
or time period, and a comparison between the two passages provides no
evidence for the recapitulation view of amillennialism.64

e Final Battle in 16:12–16, 19:11–21, and 20:7–10

A third argument for recapitulation in Revelation 20 involves the decisive
war at the end of the present age. Amillennialists believe that three passages
in Revelation describe the Battle of Armageddon—Revelation 16:12–16,
19:11–21, and 20:7–10—when Jesus returns to earth with the armies of
heaven to destroy His enemies.65 ese passages have different points of
emphasis, but all of them are viewed as “complementary portrayals of the
second coming of Christ.”66 According to amillennialists, the apostle John is
providing, “by means of literary recapitulation, differing perspectives on the
same events.”67
is argument for recapitulation focuses primarily on similarities
between the battles described in Revelation 19:11–21 and Revelation 20:7–
10, which are seen as “one and the same event, each depicted from a
different redemptive-historical angle.”68 According to Riddlebarger:
 e battle of Revelation 20:7–10 is a recapitulation of the battle
recorded in Revelation 19:11–21, not a different battle that occurs
one thousand years later. ese are two pictures of the same con ict.
If this case can be made with any degree of probability, it goes a long
way toward establishing amillennialism as the biblical understanding
of the millennial age.69

ere are three primary reasons that amillennialists believe the battles
described in Revelation 16:12–16, 19:11–21, and 20:7–10 are one and the
same event: (1) similarities between descriptions of the battle; (2) the use of
Ezekiel 38–39 in Revelation 19–20; and (3) the completion of divine wrath
in Revelation 15:1.

Similarities Between Descriptions of the Battle

e rst reason involves the various similarities in the way that the battles
are described.70 Amillennialists highlight four similarities in particular as
evidence that Revelation 16:14–16, 19:19–21, and 20:7–10 “are not
describing three different battles that will take place at three different times,
but rather are all descriptions of one and the same battle.”71 e rst
similarity concerns the identity of the enemies in the battle. In Revelation 16
they are “the kings of the whole world” (16:14); in Revelation 19 they are
“kings” and “commanders” and “mighty men,” as well as “all men, both free
and slave, both small and great” (19:18); and in Revelation 20 they are “the
nations that are at the four corners of the earth” (20:8).72 e similar identity
of the enemies in all three battles is viewed as evidence that these battles are
one and the same.
In response to this rst point of similarity, the identity of God’s enemies
in these passages is perfectly consistent with the premillennial view.
According to premillennialism, Revelation 16:12–16 and 19:11–21 do not
describe two different battles.73 Instead, Revelation 16:12–16 refers to the
preparations for battle, and Revelation 19:11–21 refers to the battle itself, but
both passages refer to the same battle.74 For this reason, when Revelation
16:14 describes the “the kings of the whole world” being assembled in
preparation for battle, and Revelation 19:19 describes “the kings of the earth
and their armies” being defeated in battle, this ts perfectly with the
premillennial interpretation of these two passages.75
In addition, because premillennialists see Revelation 20:7–10 as a
separate battle at the end of a millennial kingdom in which Jesus and God’s
people have reigned on the earth for a thousand years, it makes perfect sense
that the enemies gathered for battle are neither kings nor their armies—
which will not exist in the millennium (Rev 2:26–27; 3:21; 5:10; 20:4–6)—
but simply the nations of the world (Rev 20:8). erefore, not only is the
identity of God’s enemies in these three passages perfectly consistent with
the premillennial view, but premillennialism has the added advantage of
being able to explain why Revelation 16:12–16 and 19:11–21 focus on the
kings of the earth, whereas Revelation 20:7–10 refers only to the nations of
the world.
e second similarity involves the gathering of God’s enemies to ght in
the battle described in the three passages. Not only is virtually identical
language used for the gathering of forces in all three descriptions—“to
gather them together for the war” (sunagagei:n aujtou;V eijV to;n povlemon)
in Revelation 16:14 and 20:8 and “assembled to make war” (sunhgmevna
poih:sai to;n povlemon) in Revelation 19:1976—but also “the gathered forces
have been deceived into participating” in the battle in all three passages.77 As
Beale writes, “is enforces the impression that Satan’s deception of the
nations in 20:8 ‘to gather them together for war’ is the same event as the
deception of the nations in 16:12–16 and 19:19.”78
Because premillennialism sees the gathering described in Revelation
19:19 as a reiteration of what takes place in Revelation 16:14, the similarity
between these two passages is to be expected. But as premillennialist Grant
Osborne concedes, the language in Revelation 20:8 is indeed “problematic
for the premillennial position,” especially because the wording is identical to
what is found in Revelation 16:14 (sunagagei:n aujtou;V eijV to;n povlemon).
At the same time, because the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1–3
prevents a deception that was already taking place, it makes sense that
history repeats itself when Satan is released and he returns to deceiving the
nations to gather them for battle. Furthermore, in light of all the differences
between the battle in Revelation 20:7–9 and the battle of Armageddon in
Revelation 16/19, the identical terminology falls short of proving the
recapitulation view. As Osborne explains:

e battle of 16:14–16 and 19:17–21 was led by the beast, this one [in
20:7–9] by Satan. e army of the rst [in 16:14–16 and 19:17–21]
was destroyed by the sword from the mouth of the Lord, this army
[in 20:7–9] by re coming down from heaven. At the end of that
battle [in 16:14–16 and 19:17–21], the beast and false prophet are
cast into the lake of re; aer this one [in 20:7–9], Satan himself is
cast into the lake of re. In other words, the details are sufficiently
different to warrant the view of a second battle rather than a
recapitulation of the rst.79

erefore, even though the identical wording in Revelation 16:14 and 20:8 is
the most persuasive argument for the recapitulation view thus far, it fails to
overturn the other contextual evidence which argues against it.
e third similarity is the use of the article to describe the battle as “the
war” (to;n povlemon) in each of the three passages (Rev 16:14; 19:19; 20:8).80
As amillennialist Robert Strimple explains, “In 16:14 kings are called forth
to the battle. In 19:19 the beast and the kings of the earth come forth to the
battle. In 20:8 Satan leads his hosts up to the battle. It seems clear that these
three texts describe not three battles but one.”81 According to Sam Storms,
this use of the article not only “con rms yet again that John had one and the
same ‘war’ in view,”82 but it also “points to a well-known war, the
eschatological war oen prophesied in the Old Testament between God and
his enemies (cf. Joel 2:11; Zeph. 1:14; Zech. 14:2–14).”83 Cornelis Venema
concurs, stating that the use of the article suggests “that this battle represents
a nal and conclusive defeat of Christ’s enemies.”84 In this way, John’s
designation “the war” is seen as evidence of recapitulation in Revelation 20.
In response to this argument, it does make good sense to interpret (a)
the article in Revelation 16:14 as a reference to a battle which is well known
because it was prophesied in the Old Testament85 and (b) the article in
Revelation 19:19 as an anaphoric reference to the same battle. For this
reason, the amillennial argument that the article in Revelation 20:8 is also
anaphoric—and therefore connects the three wars as one and the same—is
formidable and should not be taken lightly.
At the same time, however, “e battle of 20:8 should not be identi ed
with the battle of 19:19 on the basis of the Greek article to the exclusion of
the literary context as a whole.”86 Even amillennialist R. Fowler White
concedes that this argument from the three uses of to;n povlemon ultimately
depends on the larger context and whether the “wording and plot in 16:14;
19:19; 20:8 point most naturally in the direction of identical settings.”87
Because the wording and plot in these passages do not most naturally point
in the direction of identical settings, the three articular uses of povlemoV fail
to prove the recapitulation view.88 Even more signi cantly, if the case for
recapitulation fails in Revelation 20:1–6—which it clearly does—then 20:7–
10 cannot recapitulate 19:11–21.89
Regarding the signi cance of the Greek article, it is possible, as Harold
Hoehner argues, that “the war” (to;n povlemon) does not appear as a single
event in Revelation but rather refers to “various facets of the great con ict
between Christ with His saints and Satan and his hosts.”90 As Hoehner
explains:

In Revelation 19–20 this great con ict between Christ and Satan is
manifested at the end of the Tribulation and at the end of the
Millennium. We should not think that the articular noun always
means the same thing in different settings. In 19:17–21 it refers to
“the war” between Christ and the beast and the false prophet just
before the 1,000 years and in 20:7–10 refers to “the war” between
Christ and Satan just aer the 1,000 years. e settings of each
passage make it clear that they are different times. ough there are
parallels, they are not one and the same battle.91

In connection with other compelling arguments, the three uses of to;n

povlemon would provide additional support for the recapitulation view. But
in the absence of such arguments—and in light of the strength and
comprehensiveness of the argument against the recapitulation view—the
three-fold use of “the war” in Revelation 16:14, 19:19, and 20:8 fails to prove
the amillennial interpretation.
 A fourth similarity involves God’s means of victory over His enemies.
According to Riddlebarger, in both Revelation 19:20 and Revelation 20:9–
10, “the re of God’s judgment consumes his enemies.”92 e rst vision
depicts judgment on the nations, the beast, and the false prophet, and the
second vision describes judgment on the nations and on Satan; but both
groups of God’s enemies “are said to experience the nal and eternal wrath
of God through the means of burning sulfur.”93 is parallel between the
two passages is seen as evidence for recapitulation in Revelation 20.
e initial problem with this argument is that the re of Revelation 20:9
is the re of temporal judgment, whereas the re of Revelation 19:20 and
20:10 is the re of eternal judgment. e former is the re which comes
down from heaven and devours Satan and the revolting nations when they
attack Jesus and the saints during the “short time” aer the millennium (Rev
20:9), whereas the latter is the re which torments the beast, the false
prophet, and Satan for all eternity as an act of everlasting judgment (Rev
19:20; 20:10). Because the re of Revelation 20:9 does not portray the same
act of divine judgment as the re of Revelation 19:20 and 20:10, Revelation
20:9 has no relevance to Riddlebarger’s argument.
is leaves the re in Revelation 19:20 and 20:10—the re of everlasting
judgment which torments the beast, the false prophet, and Satan forever—as
the only possible connection between the two battles.94 But as discussed
above, John’s description of Satan’s consignment to the lake of re—the place
“where the beast and the false prophet are also” (Rev 20:10)—most naturally
leads to the following sequence of events in Revelation: (a) the beast and
false prophet are cast into the lake of re (19:20); (b) Satan is bound and
sealed in the abyss for a thousand years (20:1–6); (c) Satan is released aer
the thousand years and defeated by re from heaven (20:7–9); and then (d)
Satan is thrown into the lake of re where the beast and false prophet
already are (20:10). For this reason, even though the re of everlasting
torment in Revelation 19:20 and 20:10 is indeed the same re, the context
makes it clear that the beast and the false prophet are consigned to this re
before the thousand years whereas Satan is not consigned to it until aer the
thousand years (Rev 20:10). e re in these two passages provides no
evidence that the two battles are one and the same.
e Use of Ezekiel 38–39 in Revelation 19–20
e second reason Revelation 20:7–10 is seen as a description of the same
battle as Revelation 19:11–21 is because both passages use language very
similar to that in Ezekiel 38–39.95 In fact, a comparison between the three
passages is said to show “that the Apostle John, in his respective descriptions
of the rebellion and defeat of the nations in Revelation 19 and 20, is drawing
upon identical language and imagery from Ezekiel’s prophecy.”96
is use of Ezekiel 38–39 is presented as evidence of recapitulation in
Revelation 20.97 As White explains, “If John expected us to interpret the
revolts in Revelation 19 and 20 as different episodes in history, we could
hardly expect him to describe them in language and imagery derived from
the same episode in Ezekiel’s prophecy.”98 According to Venema, “A much
more plausible reading would conclude that these visions describe the same
event and are to be read as parallel descriptions of the same historical
period.”99
Amillennialists believe that the similarities between the visions of John
and Ezekiel are unmistakably obvious. For example, in Ezekiel 39:17–20,
“the prophet Ezekiel foretold of a gruesome scene in which wild animals and
birds are summoned to feast on the remains of God’s defeated enemy,
Gog.”100 In a similar way, the birds and animals in Revelation 19 are
summoned to feast on God’s enemies who were crushed by the divine
warrior (vv. 17–18, 21).101 As Riddlebarger writes, “ere can be little doubt
that the prophecy of Ezekiel 38–39 is ful lled by the events of Revelation
19:11–21 at the time of our Lord’s second advent.”102 e connection of
Ezekiel’s prophecies to Revelation 20:7–10 is said to be equally strong, for
the nations which rebel against Christ at the end of the thousand years are
referred to as “Gog and Magog” (Rev 20:8), the very titles given to the
enemies of God in the prophecies of Ezekiel (38:2; 39:1, 6).103
According to amillennialists, this leads to the conclusion that the visions
in Revelation 19:11–21 and Revelation 20:7–10 provide two different camera
angles of the same battle at the end of the present age.104 As White
summarizes:

John’s recapitulated use of Ezekiel 38–39 in both 19:17–21 and 20:7–

10 establishes a prima facie case for us to understand 20:7–10 as a
 recapitulation of 19:17–21. If 20:7–10 is indeed a recapitulation of
19:17–21, then 20:7–10 narrates the demise of the dragon (Satan) at
the second coming, while 19:17–21 narrates the demise of the beast
and the false prophet at the second coming. Any other interpretation
of how to relate these two judgment scenes, both of which are
modeled on Ezekiel 38–39, will have to bear the burden of proof.105

In response to this argument, there is good reason to deny that Ezekiel’s

prophecy is ful lled in the battle of Revelation 20:7–10.106 e primary
indication that Revelation 20:7–10 is not a direct ful llment of Ezekiel 38–
39 is found in the way John alludes to Ezekiel’s prophecy. Most interpreters
agree that the only explicit connection between the two passages is the
reference to “Gog and Magog,”107 and yet the apostle employs this
terminology quite differently than the Old Testament prophet. In Ezekiel
38–39, Gog is the prince of Rosh, Meschech, and Tubal (38:2–3), a local
power which attacks Israel from the north,108 and Magog is the land where
he is from (38:2; 39:6).109 But in Revelation 20, “Gog and Magog” are the
nations of the world which gather from the four corners of the earth to
surround and attack the saints in Jerusalem (vv. 8–9).110 is distinction
alone—Gog as a single ruler and Magog as his homeland vs. Gog and Magog
as the nations attacking from the four corners of the earth—is sufficient to
indicate that John’s allusion should not be understood as a direct ful llment
of the events predicted by Ezekiel.111
But if Revelation 20:7–10 is not the ful llment of the prophecy in Ezekiel
38–39, what is the signi cance of the reference to Gog and Magog? e
answer begins with the recognition that “John does not always cite the OT
with a strictly literal interpretation of proper names and events.”112 For
example, when he refers to Sodom (11:8), Egypt (11:8), and Babylon (14:8;
16:19; 17:1, 5; 18:1, 2, 9, 10, 21) elsewhere in Revelation, John does not
intend these references to be taken literally—instead he is seeking to convey
the classic connotations associated with each of these well-known enemies
of God. erefore, the symbolic signi cance of these proper names can be
traced to the characteristics and/or function of ancient Sodom (moral
degradation), ancient Egypt (oppression and slavery), and ancient Babylon
(the great enemy of God’s people) in biblical history, leading interpreters to
identify the intended referents in each case.113 is is similar to how the
prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel apply the name “Sodom” to Judah to highlight
the wickedness of the Southern Kingdom (Isa 11:9–17; Ezek 16:46).114
In the same way, when John refers to the nations as “Gog and Magog” in
Revelation 20:7–9, he is not signaling the ful llment of the events
prophesied in Ezekiel 38–39. Instead, his paradigmatic use of “Gog and
Magog” is designed to identify the satanically deceived nations of the world
in a way that vividly highlights their role as the enemy of God and His
people aer the millennium.115 As Alan Johnson notes, the application of
this designation to the enemies of God “has occurred historically through
the frequent use in rabbinic circles of the expression ‘Gog and Magog’ to
symbolically refer to the nations spoken of in Psalm 2 who are in rebellion
against God and his Messiah.”116 For this reason, “e most that one can
discern from these names is that they are emblems for the enemies of
Messiah during the end times,”117 not that Revelation 20:7–10 ful lls the
prophecy of Ezekiel 38–39 and therefore recapitulates the battle of
Revelation 19:11–21.118

e Completion of Divine Wrath in Revelation 15:1

e third reason that Revelation 19:11–21 and 20:7–10 are viewed as the
same battle comes from Revelation 15:1, where John writes: “en I saw
another sign in heaven, great and marvelous, seven angels who had seven
plagues, which are the last, because in them the wrath of God is nished.”
According to amillennialists, John’s declaration that “the wrath of God is
nished” indicates “that the dispensing of the seven bowls of wrath by the
seven angels will bring to a close the outpouring of God’s wrath upon the
wicked in the course of history.”119 Because amillennialists believe the last of
these bowls are also described in both Revelation 16:17–21 and 19:19–21,120
the vision of Revelation 19 is said to represent “the completion of the course
of history and the nishing of God’s wrath upon the nations.”121 For this
reason, amillennialists claim that the sequential reading of Revelation 19–20
introduces a discrepancy between the completion of God’s wrath in
15:1/16:17–21/19:19–21 and the subsequent outpouring of God’s wrath in
20:7–10.122 Put simply, if Revelation 15:1 indicates that the outpouring of
divine wrath against the enemies of God will be completed in Revelation
19:19–21, how can the divine wrath be poured out once again in Revelation
20:7–10?123 e amillennial view of recapitulation—in which God’s nal
victory is portrayed in Revelation 16:17–21, 19:11–21, and 20:7–10—claims
to avoid this discrepancy because it ts perfectly with the declaration of
Revelation 15:1 that “the wrath of God is nished” at the Second Coming.
In reality, however, Revelation 15:1 presents no more of a problem for
premillennialism than it does for amillennialism. If Revelation 15:1 is taken
to mean that God’s wrath will be completed at the Second Coming—never
to be expressed again—then the amillennialist has difficulty explaining how
the wrath of God can be poured out on unbelievers for all eternity (Rev
20:11–15). is is why amillennialists qualify their interpretation by
insisting that Revelation 15:1 refers to the completion of God’s “temporal”124
wrath which is expressed “in the course of history.”125 In doing so,
amillennialists can affirm an expression of God’s wrath which takes place
aer the Second Coming (Rev 20:11–15). But by qualifying Revelation 15:1
in this way, amillennialists undermine their own argument against
premillennialism. Put simply, if Revelation 15:1 allows for the expression of
divine wrath aer the Second Coming—as amillennialists concede it does—
what objection can be sustained against the premillennial view that God will
express His wrath against Satan and the unbelieving rebels a thousand years
aer the return of Christ? If Revelation 15:1 allows for a subsequent
expression of God’s wrath in Revelation 20:11–15 (according to the
recapitulation view), it also allows for a subsequent expression of God’s
wrath in Revelation 20:7–10 (according to the sequential view).126
Revelation 15:1 obviously cannot mean that these plagues exhaust the
totality of divine wrath—for the beast, the false prophet, the devil, and
unbelievers have not yet been cast into the lake of re in the nal
manifestation of God’s wrath against sin (Rev 19:20; 20:10, 11–15).127
Instead, these words must be interpreted in the eschatological context of the
outpouring of God’s wrath in the time of the great tribulation.128 According
to Revelation 15:1, the seven plagues are the last of God’s judgments against
the unbelieving nations during the great tribulation—which culminates in
the return of Christ—and when these plagues are over, the wrath of God will
have been completed (or reached its ultimate goal). But this no more
discounts the possibility of divine wrath a thousand years later in Revelation
20:7–10 than it does in the eternal state in Revelation 20:11–15, so this
argument from the recapitulation view is not compelling.

e eme of Angelic Ascent/Descent in Revelation

A fourth argument for the recapitulation view involves the motif of angelic
ascent and descent in the book of Revelation.129 According to this argument,
where an angel’s ascent or descent begins a new vision sequence elsewhere
in Revelation, that vision portrays a course of events from the present time
to the return of Christ at the end of the age.130 In Revelation 7:2, 10:1, and
18:1, for example, “the angelic ascent/descent initiates a vision that
temporarily suspends whatever historical or chronological process had
heretofore obtained, and introduces an interlude that is recapitulatory in
nature.”131 Because the vision of Revelation 20 begins with the descent of an
angel from heaven, it would t with this established pattern of recapitulation
if this chapter took the reader back to the beginning of the New Testament
era.132 For this reason, the motif of angelical ascent/descent in Revelation is
seen as support for the recapitulation view.
e most signi cant weakness of this argument is the subtlety of the
structural pattern supposedly indicated by this angelic motif. In light of the
complexity of this argument—and the difficulty of recognizing this pattern
even when it is highlighted by the amillennialist—one has to question how
likely it is that John intended to signal a recapitulatory interlude with the
descent of the angel in Revelation 20:1. Isn’t it more likely that the apostle
was simply describing the movement of the angel who was sent by God from
heaven to lay hold of Satan on earth? And isn’t it possible for him to have
done so without signaling a chronological break between chapters 19 and
20, especially in light of the previously highlighted progression of these
visions?
At issue here is the perspicuity of the book of Revelation (Rev 1:3). Is the
claim that these other two angelic descents signal an interlude sufficient to
communicate recapitulation in Revelation 20:1?133 Does the amillennialist
believe that the apostle expected his readers to discover this pattern and
decipher its intended implications? As Craig Blaising observes, this
argument appears to be an arti cially constructed typology imposed on the
book of Revelation, and one that ignores several textual details in the
process.134

e Chiastic Structure of Revelation 17–22

A h and nal argument for recapitulation in chapter 20 involves the
broader context of Revelation 17–22. According to G. K. Beale, these
chapters form a chiastic structure with sections exhibiting synchronous
parallelism:

A judgment of the harlot (17:1–19:6)

B the divine Judge (19:11–16)
C judgment of the beast and the false prophet (19:17–21)
D Satan imprisoned for 1,000 years (20:1–3)
D’ the saints reign/judge for 1,000 years (20:4–6)
C’ the judgment of Gog and Magog (20:7–10)
B’ the divine Judge (20:11–15)
A’ vindication of the bride (21:1–22:5; cf. 19:7–9)135

According to Beale, this chiastic structure suggests that Revelation 20:1ff

does not follow chronologically aer Revelation 19:11–21.136
e obvious weakness of this argument is that the parallelism is not
synchronous in two of the four pairs of the chiasm (A/A’ and B/B’), even if
one assumes the recapitulatory structure advocated by amillennialists.
According to the chiasm, the judgment of the harlot in 17:1–19:6 is
synchronously parallel to the vindication of the bride in 21:1–22:5 (A/A’),
but the former takes place in the present age while the latter takes place in
the eternal state. Furthermore, the divine judgment in 19:11–16 is said to be
synchronously parallel to the divine judgment in 20:11–15 (B/B’)—but the
former is the temporal judgment of the last generation of the wicked that
takes place when Jesus returns, whereas the latter is the eternal judgment of
all the wicked that takes place aer the resurrection. Because of the lack of
synchronous parallelism in two of the four pairs in the supposed chiasm,
this argument provides no support for the recapitulation view of
amillennialism.
 CONCLUSION
No other section of Scripture sets forth the eschatological events of human
history with the kind of chronological clarity found in Revelation 19–22. At
the end of present age, Jesus will return in glory (Rev 19:11–16), bringing
judgment to the false prophet, the beast, and the unbelieving armies of the
earth (Rev 19:17–21). Satan will be imprisoned in the abyss for a thousand
years (Rev 20:1–3), and Jesus will establish His kingdom on earth where He
will reign with the saints in perfect righteousness (Rev 20:4–6). At the end of
the thousand years, Satan will be released and defeated once and for all (Rev
20:7–10); the wicked will be resurrected, judged, and thrown into the lake of
re (Rev 20:11–15); and the eternal state of the new heaven and earth will
begin (Rev 21–22).
In Revelation 20:1–6, then, the apostle John describes the thousand-year
reign of Christ as following the Second Coming of Revelation 19 and yet
preceding the new heavens and new earth of Revelation 21–22. e inability
of amillennialists to demonstrate that the thousand years of Revelation 20 is
a present reality leads to the conclusion that this passage affirms an
intermediate kingdom between the present age and the eternal state and
thereby presents an insurmountable problem for the two-age model of
amillennialism.

1 e sequential view is also known as postconsummationism (because the events of

Rev 20:1–6 take place aer the Second Coming), and the recapitulation view is also
known as preconsummationism (because the events of Rev 20:1–6 take place before the
Second Coming).
2 Anthony Hoekema, e Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1979), 226. Elsewhere Hoekema states that if the sequential view is correct, “We are
then virtually compelled to believe that the thousand-year reign depicted in 20:4 must
come aer the return of Christ described in 19:11” (Anthony A. Hoekema,
“Amillennialism,” in e Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse
[Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977], 156).
3 Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, ECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 715.
4 John F. Walvoord, Revelation, rev. and ed. Philip E. Rawley and Mark Hitchcock
(Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2011), 300, 303; Harold W. Hoehner, “Evidence from
Revelation 20,” in A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, eds. Donald K.
Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 247–48; Steve
 Sullivan, “Premillennialism and an Exegesis of Revelation 20,” 4–9, accessed on July 20,
2014, http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Sullivan-PremillennialismAndA.pdf.
5 Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” 247–48.
6 Other premillennialists are less dogmatic in making this argument from kai; ei\don,
but they believe it does place the burden of proof on those who advocate recapitulation
(Robert H. Mounce, e Book of Revelation, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1977], 361; Craig A. Blaising, “Premillennialism,” in ree Views on the
Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing],
215; David J. MacLeod, “e ird ‘Last ing’: e Binding of Satan (Rev. 20:1–3),”
BSac 156, no. 624 [Oct 1999]: 472–73; Jeffrey L. Townsend, “Is the Present Age the
Millennium?,” BSac 140, no. 559 [July 1983]: 213).
7 R. Fowler White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Rev 20:1–10,” WTJ
51, no. 2 (Fall 1989): 324; Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: e Amillennial Alternative
(Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2013), 430.
8 White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,” 324; White, “Making Sense of Rev 20:1–10?:
Harold Hoehner Versus Recapitulation,” JETS 37, no. 3 (Dec 1994): 540; Storms,
Kingdom Come, 430–31.
9 Osborne, Revelation, 699.
10 As Craig Blaising writes: “e visions of 19:11–21:8 are structured in a uni ed
sequence. ere is no structural indication of a major break within this sequence
recapitulating pre-Parousia conditions. e series is tied together by the frequent use of
kai eidon (‘and I saw’), a recognized structural marker. is phrase, although not
determinative in itself of a chronological sequence, nevertheless can be used for such.
e content of the visions helps to determine the chronology. e key point, however,
is that kai eidon does not signify a major structural break at one point (such as 20:1),
which would be contrary to its use throughout the entire group of visions”
(“Premillennialism,” 215; emphasis original).
11 White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,” 324.
12 George Eldon Ladd, “An Historic Premillennial Reponse,” in e Meaning of the
Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1979), 190; Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” 247–48; Blaising,
“Premillennialism,” 219; Craig Blomberg, “Eschatology and the Church: Some New
Testament Perspectives,” em 23, no. 3 (June 1998): 14–15; John F. Walvoord, “e
eological Signi cance of Revelation 20:1–6,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight
Pentecost, eds. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody Press,
1986), 229.
13 is designation “unholy trinity” is used by Blomberg, “Eschatology and the Church,”
15, who also refers to them as a “demonic trio.” See Rev 16:13–14 where all three are
named in succession and are said to deceive the kings of the world and gather them for
battle.
14 Blomberg, “Eschatology and the Church,” 15.
15 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 219; Walvoord, “eological Signi cance,” 229. Craig L.
Blomberg, “e Posttribulationism of the New Testament,” in A Case for Historic
 Premillennialism: An Alternative to “Le Behind” Eschatology, eds. Craig L. Blomberg
and Sung Wook Chung (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009), 68.
16 Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” 247.
17 William J. Webb, “Revelation 20: Exegetical Considerations,” e Baptist Review of
eology 4, no. 2 (Fall 1994): 15. According to Webb, the continuity of this story line is
further con rmed through certain word-links which draw together chapters 19 and 20:
“For example, the beast and false prophet were ‘captured’ (ejpiavsqh) and ‘thrown’
(ejblhvqhsan) into the ery lake. is is followed by Satan being ‘seized’ (ejkravthsen—a
very similar semantic eld to ejpiavsqh) and ‘thrown’ (e[balen) into the abyss…. So each
member of the triad is ‘captured/seized’ and ‘thrown’ into a place of con nement, while
the plot for the ringleader comes with a little prolonged intrigue. e repeated motif of
the ‘capture’ and ‘throwing’ of prisoners into con nement strongly suggests that the
fate of Satan in Revelation 20:1–3 is a continuation of the battle context of chapter 19”
(16).
18 Blomberg, “e Posttribulationism of the New Testament,” 67.
19 Richard A. Ostella, “e Signi cance of Deception in Revelation 20:3,” WTJ 37, no. 2
(Winter 1975): 237–38; also see BDAG, 400.
20 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 219–20.
21 Ibid., 220.
22 Rev 12:9; 13:14; 18:23; and 19:20.
23 Webb, “Revelation 20,” 17.
24 Robert L. omas, “A Classical Dispensationalist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on
the Book of Revelation, 205–6.
25 Storms, Kingdom Come, 436–37; emphasis added.
26 Webb, “Revelation 20,” 15–16.
27 e primary response of Sam Storms is that this argument for the sequential view is
based on a mistranslation of the relative clause o{pou kai; to; qhrivon kai; oJ
yeudoprofhvthV in Rev 20:10. Because this clause contains no verb, most translations
supply the verb “are” (NASB; HCSB; NET; ASV; KJV; NKJV) or “were” (ESV; RSV),
resulting something like, “where the beast and the false prophet are/were also.”
According to Storms, however, instead of supplying the copula—as almost all
translations do—the verb to be supplied is probably “were cast” (ejblhvqhsan) from Rev
19:20 (Kingdom Come, 436). But unless one presupposes the view that Storms is trying
to prove—that Rev 19:20 and 20:10 describe the same event—there is no reason to
think that a verb from 12 verses earlier should be supplied in this clause. More feasible
—although de nitely not certain—is the suggestion of Beale, who sees the elided verb
as either “are cast” or “were cast,” from the verb ejblhvqh (“was cast”) in regard to Satan
earlier in Rev 20:10 (G. K. Beale, e Book of Revelation, NIGTC [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1999], 1030).
Even though Storms and Beale argue from different antecedents, they agree that
the verb to be supplied in Rev 20:10 is a plural passive form of bavllw (either “are cast”
or “were cast”) and that it indicates that Satan, the beast, and the false prophet are all
 thrown into the lake of re at the same time (Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1030;
Storms, Kingdom Come, 436–37). Only one major translation supports the view of
Storms and Beale—the NIV, which reads, “where the beast and the false prophet had
been thrown”—but it is indeed possible. But even if Rev 19:20 should read “where the
beast and the false prophet were also thrown,” this does nothing to lessen the force of
the premillennial argument, for the most natural way to read Revelation 19–20 would
still be to see a chronological sequence: (a) the beast and false prophet are cast into the
lake of re (Rev 19:20); (b) Satan is bound and sealed in the abyss for a thousand years
(Rev 20:1–6); (c) Satan is released aer the thousand years and defeated by re from
heaven (Rev 20:7–9); and then (d) Satan is cast into the lake of re where the beast and
false prophet were previously cast a thousand years earlier (Rev 20:10).
28 Jack S. Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6,” BSac 135, no. 537 (Jan 1978):
73; Sullivan, “Premillennialism,” 7–8, 40–41.
29 Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6,” 73; Sullivan, “Premillennialism,” 7–8,
40–41.
30 Contra Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6,” 73, who sees this as one of the
strongest arguments for viewing Revelation 20:4–6 as future.
31 White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,” 324; also see Storms, Kingdom Come, 404; Kim
Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, expanded ed.
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013), 228; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 307. As
White further explains, “Any historical relationship among the visions must be
demonstrated from the content of the visions, not simply presumed from the order in
which John presents them” (“Evidence for Recapitulation,” 324; emphasis original).
32 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 228; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 305.
33 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 228; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 305.
34 William Hendriksen, More an Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of
Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1967), 34–36.
35 E.g., Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 223–26; Venema, e Promise of the Future,
306–7; Vern S. Poythress, e Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation
(Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2000), 179; Riddlebarger, A
Case for Amillennialism, 228; Storms, Kingdom Come, 406.
36 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 223.
37 Ibid., 226; Hendriksen, More an Conquerors, 36.
38 Hoekema, e Bible and the Future, 227. According to Cornelis Venema: “Whether
Hendriksen’s analysis of the structure of the book of Revelation is entirely correct in all
of its particulars is not so important at this juncture. What is important is that it
illustrates a commonly acknowledged feature of the book: that it should not be read as
a linear description of end-time events. e simple fact that one vision follows another
vision in the book does not mean that it does so chronologically. As is oen true
throughout the book, the events depicted may well parallel and recapitulate events
represented in a preceding vision” (e Promise of the Future, 307).
39 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 305.
40 White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,” 321. According to White, “Reading the events of
19:11–21 and 20:1–3 in historical sequence does not yield a logically coherent picture.”
41 White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,” 321. Venema makes the same point: “What sense
does it make to speak of nations being protected from Satanic deception, when those
nations which were formerly deceived by Satan have now been completely
vanquished?” (e Promise of the Future, 309).
42 Poythress, e Returning King, 179.
43 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 249.
44 White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,” 321; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism,
230–31; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 309; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 980–81;
Storms, Kingdom Come, 431. According to Riddlebarger, “In light of the broader
eschatology of the New Testament, the most plausible explanation is that Revelation
19:11–21 depicts the same event as Revelation 20:7–10” (A Case for Amillennialism,
231).
45 Mounce, e Book of Revelation, 363; Alan Johnson, “Revelation,” in EBC, ed. Frank E.
Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1981), 12:587; Osborne, Revelation,
702; Robert H. Gundry, e Church and the Tribulation: A Biblical Examination of
Posttribulationism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1973), 166–67; George
Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1972), 257, 262–63. Osborne refers to these survivors as “earth-dwellers
who supported but were not part of the army” (Revelation, 702) and who therefore
were not destroyed in the battle; and Ladd sees them as “nations outside of the scope of
this struggle” (A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 263). Amillennialist R. Fowler
White erroneously claims that this is the only premillennial attempt to solve the
problem of the alleged discrepancy between Rev 19:11–21 and 20:1–3 (“Evidence for
Recapitulation,” 323).
46 e immediate context indicates that the gathering of the nations for this battle “is not
a gathering of all their inhabitants but of their armies” (Blaising, “Premillennialism,”
220). According to Blaising, this is made explicit in Rev 19:19, which refers to “the
beast and the kings of the earth and their armies,” but not to the general population of
the nations. In addition, Blaising points out that Rev 19:21 “refers to the destruction of
these armies, not all the inhabitants or even all the wicked inhabitants of the nations”
(emphasis original). Even the reference to “all esh” in verse 18 is most naturally
understood as the totality of the armies gathered in opposition to Christ. As Blaising
explains: “Aer ‘kings,’ ‘captains,’ ‘mighty men,’ cavalry (‘horses and their riders’), the
nal reference to ‘ esh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great’ concludes
a reference to the totality of the opposition force. is interpretation is con rmed by
the repeat listing in 19:19: ‘the beast,’ ‘the kings of the earth,’ and ‘their armies.’ To read
into this global judgment of all unbelievers everywhere on the planet beyond the
gathering of these armies is without support in this text” (Craig A. Blaising, “e
Kingdom that Comes with Jesus: Premillennialism and the Harmony of Scripture,” in
e Return of Christ: A Premillennial Perspective, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W.
Lemke [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2011], 152).
47 Paul D. Feinberg, “e Case for the Pretribulation Rapture Position,” in ree Views on
the Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulation? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing,
1996), 74; emphasis original.
48 Walvoord, Revelation, 314. is is the view of Robert L. omas, “e Kingdom of
Christ in the Apocalypse,” MSJ 3, no. 2 (Fall 1992): 133–34; Robert L. omas,
Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 405, 410–
11; MacLeod, “e ird ‘Last ing,’” 483; Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,”
252; Sullivan, “Premillennialism,” 22–23; Charles E. Powell, “Progression Versus
Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1–6,” BSac 163, no. 649 (Jan 2006): 105. As Sullivan
explains: “Christ at his second advent will destroy all those who follow the beast
(Revelation 13:7–8, 15–17; 16:13–14; 19:17–21) but the saints will not take the mark of
the beast and thus many will be martyred (Revelation 7:9, 13–17; 14:12–13). Some of
the saints will survive the Tribulation and will enter the millennium while others will
be resurrected to enter the millennium (Matthew 24:38–44; 25:31–46; Luke 17:22–37;
Revelation 20:4)” (“Premillennialism,” 23). is view is compatible with the pre-
tribulation, mid-tribulation, pre-wrath views of the rapture’s timing, but not with the
post-tribulation view. e rst three views allow time for people to be saved aer the
rapture and therefore enter the millennial kingdom in non-glori ed bodies. But
according to the post-tribulational view, all the saints will be glori ed when they are
raptured at the Second Coming (1 ess 4:13–18; 1 Cor 15:51–52), leaving no non-
glori ed believers to enter the Millennial Kingdom.
49 According to amillennialist Floyd Hamilton, Luke 20:34–36 precludes the possibility of
believers having offspring during the thousand-year kingdom of premillennialism
(Floyd E. Hamilton, e Basis of Millennial Faith [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1942], 137), but this passage refers only to those who have been resurrected and
glori ed. As stated above, the nations in the millennium will emerge from non-
glori ed believers who enter the millennial kingdom. Some amillennialists object to
the co-existence of glori ed and non-glori ed people in the messianic kingdom of
premillennialism, but the risen and glori ed Christ ate and interacted with the non-
glori ed disciples during the forty days between His resurrection and ascension (e.g.,
Luke 24:43; Acts 1:3), thus no compelling objection can be sustained.
50 omas, Revelation 8–22, 411.
51 Ibid. As premillennialist Charles Powell notes, “It is preferable to see the nations as
entities as a whole and not as unbelievers only” (“Progression Versus Recapitulation,”
105).
52 Powell, “Progression Versus Recapitulation,” 105.
53 omas, Revelation 8–22, 411.
54 Amillennialist Arthur H. Lewis objects to this view because it is inferential (Arthur H.
Lewis, e Dark Side of the Millennium: e Problem of Evil in Revelation 20:1–10
[Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993], 22), but when certain questions are not explicitly
answered in Scripture, the interpreter is le to make good and necessary inferences
from what is stated clearly. In light of the destruction of all unbelievers in Rev 19:19–
21 and the presence of sin and unbelief in Rev 20:7–9, premillennialist Robert omas
 is correct to describe this scenario as “the only viable alternative” (Revelation 8–22,
411).
55 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 229–30; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 992–
93; William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1966), 61; Samuel E. Waldron, e End Times Made Simple:
How Could Everyone Be So Wrong About Biblical Prophecy? (Amityville, NY: Calvary
Press, 2003), 95; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 320–21; Hendriksen, More an
Conquerors, 188; Poythress, e Returning King, 181; Donald Garlington, “Reigning
with Christ: Revelation 20:1–6 and the Question of the Millennium,” R&R 6, no. 2
(Spring 1997): 72; Jonathan Menn, Biblical Eschatology (Eugene, OR: Resource
Publications, 2013), 289–90; Dennis E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary
on Revelation (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2001), 286.
56 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 992; also see Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism,
229.
57 Riddlebarger’s chart is adapted from Beale, e Book of Revelation, 992.
58 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 229; Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 286;
Beale, e Book of Revelation, 993.
59 Amillennialist G. K. Beale also believes that Rev 9:1–10 and 20:1–3 are synchronous
and portray the same restriction upon Satan, albeit from different perspectives (e
Book of Revelation, 986). But these two visions cannot 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” (Powell, “Progression Versus
Recapitulation,” 103). As Powell explains, “While there may be some exibility in
apocalyptic imagery, two visions cannot contradict each other.”
60 Powell, “Progression Versus Recapitulation,” 103–5; James M. Hamilton, Jr., Revelation:
e Spirit Speaks to the Churches (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 251–52; Webb,
“Revelation 20,” 24.
61 Powell, “Progression Versus Recapitulation,” 103–4; Webb, “Revelation 20,” 24.
62 Johnson, “Revelation,” 581; Powell, “Progression Versus Recapitulation,” 104; Webb,
“Revelation 20,” 24.
63 More speci cally, the “short time” in Rev 12:12 consists of the three and a half years in
the second half of the Tribulation (Rev 11:2–3; 12:6, 14) (Powell, “Progression Versus
Recapitulation,” 104). Beale denies that the “short time” of Rev 12:12 and the “short
time” of Rev 20:3 are identical or synchronous, arguing instead for a temporal overlap
in which the “short time” of 20:3 is the nal stage of the “short time” in 12:12 (e
Book of Revelation, 993). e problem is that this makes the “short time” of three and a
half years (12:12) much longer than the “long era” of a thousand years (Rev 20:1–6)
(Powell, “Progression Versus Recapitulation,” 104). As Powell notes, “is overly
symbolic approach strips the designations of time of all temporal signi cance….
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)” (104–5).
64 An additional problem with the amillennial argument is that the scene in Revelation
12 takes place during the tribulation period rather than the present age. But since
amillennialists reject this broader reading of the book of Revelation, it is easier to
simply demonstrate that Rev 12:7–11 does not describe the same event or time period
as Rev 20:1–3.
65 Storms, Kingdom Come, 431; also see Poythress, e Returning King, 179.
66 Storms, Kingdom Come, 431. According to Storms, these passages “differ primarily
because chapter 19 is concerned with the war as it relates to the participation and fate
of the beast, his followers, and the false prophet, whereas chapter 20 is concerned
primarily with the role of Satan. Also, it stands to reason that having given a detailed
and vivid description of the war in chapters 16 and 19, John would nd it unnecessary
to repeat such detail in chapter 20” (Kingdom Come, 431–32).
67 Storms, Kingdom Come, 434. According to Strimple, “At the heart of the
amillennialists’ exegetical concern are the many clear evidences that 16:14–16; 19:19–
21; and 20:7–10 are not describing three different battles that will take place at three
different times, but rather are all descriptions of one and the same battle, with new
information about that battle revealed each time” (Robert B. Strimple, “An Amillennial
Response to Craig A. Blaising,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed.
Darrell L. Bock [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1999], 273).
68 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 230. According to Riddlebarger, “One reason
for the similarity no doubt has to do with the fact that in both texts John drew heavily
on the imagery of the prophecy of Ezekiel 38 and 39, which describes the
eschatological defeat of the mysterious Gog and Magog” (232). e signi cance of
John’s use of Ezekiel 38–39 in Revelation will be considered below.
69 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 230; also see Venema, e Promise of the
Future, 311.
70 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 230. According to Storms, because of the
similarities between Rev 19:17–21 and 20:7–10, “It seems that John is providing us
with parallel accounts of the same con ict (Armageddon) rather than presenting two
entirely different battles separated by 1,000 years of human history (as the
premillennialist contends)” (Storms, Kingdom Come, 431). Venema concurs: “e
visions of Revelation 19 and 20 show a similar parallelism in their description of the
battle that will terminate the period of history portrayed in them” (e Promise of the
Future, 311).
71 Strimple, “An Amillennial Response,” 273.
72 Storms, Kingdom Come, 432.
73 When amillennialists argue against the view that these three passages describe “three
different battles that will take place at three different times” (e.g., Strimple, “An
Amillennial Response,” 273), they seem to imply that this is the position of
premillennialism, but it is not. Premillennialists see Rev 16:12–16 and 19:11–21 as a
single battle which occurs at the Second Coming and Rev 20:7–10 as a second battle
taking place aer the millennial kingdom.
74 Osborne, Revelation, 592, 688; Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 219; omas, Revelation
8–22, 265–66, 396; Johnson, “Revelation,” 550–51; Ladd, A Commentary on the
Revelation of John, 212. As Alan Johnson explains, the sixth bowl in Rev 16:12–16 “is
speci cally aimed at drying up the Euphrates River and so will allow the demonically
inspired kings from the East to gather at Armageddon where God himself will enter
into battle with them” (“Revelation,” 550).
75 In addition to “kings,” Rev 19:18 also refers to “commanders,” “mighty men,” and
“horses … and those who sit on them,” all of which refer to those who comprise the
armies of the kings. Even the reference to “all esh” in verse 18 is most naturally
understood as the totality of the armies gathered in opposition to Christ (Blaising,
“e Kingdom that Comes with Jesus,” 152).
76 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 976, 980; Storms, Kingdom Come, 434; Venema, e
Promise of the Future, 311; White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,” 329–30.
77 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 980; emphasis original.
78 Ibid.; emphasis original. In addition, Beale observes that “just as the war of
Armageddon in ch. 16 is followed by a description of the destruction of the cosmos
(16:17–21), so likewise a vision of the dissolution of the world follows the nal battle
in 20:7–10, which suggests further the synchronous parallelism of the two segments.”
79 Osborne, Revelation, 713.
80 Storms, Kingdom Come, 432, 434; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 311; White,
“Evidence for Recapitulation,” 328–29.
81 Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 125; emphasis original.
82 Storms, Kingdom Come, 434. According to Storms, “is point is con rmed when one
observes the absence of the de nite article in Rev. 9:7, 9; 11:7; 12:7; and 13:7” (432).
83 Storms, Kingdom Come, 432.
84 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 311.
85 is is what Daniel Wallace refers to as the “well-known,” “celebrity,” or “familiar” use
of the Greek article (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An
Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1996],
225). According to Grant Osborne, “e articular to;n povlemon concretizes this to
mean “the war,” namely Armageddon (16:16). is end-of-the-world battle was
predicted in the OT (Ezek. 38–39; Zech. 12–14; Joel 2:11; 3:2), early Jewish literature (1
Enoch 56.7–8; 90.15–19; 94.9–11; T. Dan 5.10–11; 2 Esdr. [4 Ezra] 13:33–39), and the
NT (2 ess. 2:8), so in a sense the use of the de nite article points back to the nal
battle predicted by the prophets” (Revelation, 592).
86 Craig A. Blaising, “A Premillennial Response to Robert B. Strimple,” in ree Views on
the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing,
1999), 152.
87 White, “Making Sense of Rev 20:1–10,” 547. Stated more fully, White’s argument is
“that the parallels in wording and plot in 16:14; 19:19; 20:8 point most naturally in the
direction of identical settings and hence to an anaphoric usage of the article with
polemos in 20:8.”
88 As Blaising explains, the rebellion in Rev 20:7–10 is described in terms that carefully
distinguish it from the state of affairs that existed at the Second Coming: “e latter
rebellion occurs on Satan’s release from prison, whereas the earlier had occurred aer
his being cast down from the earth. e latter rebellion surrounds the saints and the
beloved city (on earth), while the earlier rebellion gathered to resist the descent of
Christ and the saints to the earth. e suppression of the earlier rebellion gave the
bodies of the rebels to the carrion birds; the suppression of the latter consumes them
by re” (“Premillennialism,” 220).
89 Powell, “Progression Versus Recapitulation,” 97.
90 Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” 259. According to Hoehner, “When we
examine Revelation 12–18 as well as Ezekiel 38–39, it seems that it is a prolonged war
or a series of battles that last for more than three years.” According to Robert omas,
povlemon in Rev 16:14 could be translated either “battle” or “war” and could either
consist of “a series of con icts or one major confrontation,” depending on how one
views subsequent events in Revelation (Revelation 8–22, 266). White says that the
contexts of Rev 16:14 and 19:19 falsify Hoehner’s claim that “the war” refers not to one
event but to various facets of the great con ict, because the articular povlemoV in 19:19
has the same referent as the articular povlemoV in 16:14 (“Making Sense,” 546). But
Hoehner agrees that Rev 16:14 and 19:19 refer to the same battle and therefore sees
Rev 16:14/19:19 as one facet of the great con ict and Rev 20:8 as another. So it is not
clear how White believes Hoehner’s view has been falsi ed by the similarities between
Revelation 16 and 19.
91 Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” 259–60. It is also possible that the article in
16:14 is well known, the article in 19:19 is anaphoric, and the article in 20:8 is the article
of simple identi cation (see Wallace, Greek Grammar, 216–20, 225).
92 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 233.
93 Ibid.
94 Riddlebarger does not cite Rev 20:11–15 in this context, but he does refer to the
nations as experiencing “the nal and eternal wrath of God through the means of
burning sulfur” (A Case for Amillennialism, 233). But because this judgment of re is
described in Revelation 20 rather than Revelation 19, it fails to provide support that
the two battles are the same.
95 Poythress, e Returning King, 179; Meredith G. Kline, “Har Magedon: e End of the
Millennium,” JETS 39, no. 2 (June 1996): 207, 213–20.
96 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 310.
97 White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,” 326–28; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism,
232–33; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 310; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 976,
979.
98 White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,” 327. As Venema writes, “It seems hard to believe,
accordingly, that the episodes described in these visions are different episodes in
history, separated by a period of one thousand years duration” (e Promise of the
Future, 310).
99 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 310.
100 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 232.
101 Ibid.; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 310; White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,”
326; Storms, Kingdom Come, 433.
102 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 232; also see Venema, e Promise of the
Future, 310; White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,” 326; Storms, Kingdom Come, 433.
103 White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,” 326; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism,
232–33; Storms, Kingdom Come, 433; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 976, 979. White
also discusses the use of Ezek 38:18–22 in Rev 16:17–21 to complete the connection
between all three passages in the Apocalypse (Rev 16:17–21; Rev 19:11–21; and Rev
20:7–10) (“Evidence for Recapitulation,” 327).
104 Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 233.
105 White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,” 327.
106 Although many premillennialists affirm that Ezekiel 38–39 describes the same battle as
Rev 19:11–21, they generally reject the idea that Ezekiel’s prophecy is ful lled in Rev
20:7–10. According to MacLeod, there are at least six different premillennial views on
the timing of the invasion of Ezekiel 38–39: (1) e invasion will take place before the
Tribulation. (2) e invasion will take place in the middle of the Tribulation. (3) e
events will take place at the end of the Tribulation. (4) e events of Ezekiel 38–39 will
spread over a period of time, with chapter 38 being ful lled in the middle of the
Tribulation and chapter 39 being ful lled at its end. (5) e invasion will take place at
the end of the millennium. (6) Ezekiel’s prophecy will be ful lled in two events, one
recorded in Rev 19:17–21 and one in Rev 20:7–10 (David J. MacLeod, “e Fih ‘Last
ing’: e Release of Satan and Man’s Final Rebellion (Rev. 20:7–10),” BSac 157, no.
626 [April 2000]: 208).
107 Ralph H. Alexander, “A Fresh Look at Ezekiel 38 and 39,” JETS 17, no. 3 (Summer
1974): 166. Kline points to various similarities between the battles in Ezekiel 38–39
and Rev 20:7–10 (Kline, “Har Magedon,” 219), but they are much too general to prove
that the battles are one and the same.
108 Several suggestions have been offered for the identity of Gog, including: (1) Gugu or
Gyges, a ruthless ruler of Lydia who reigned a century before Ezekiel; (2) Gaga, a
mountainous land north of Melitene; (3) Gagu, a ruler of the land of Sakhi, an area
north of Assyria; (4) an unidenti ed ruler whose name is from a Sumerian loan word
gug, which means “darkness”; (5) an official title for a ruler like a pharaoh or king; and
(6) a general term for any enemy of God’s people (Alexander, “A Fresh Look,” 161;
Lamar Eugene Cooper, Sr., Ezekiel, NAC vol. 17 [Nashville: Broadman Press, 1994],
331). As Ralph Alexander concludes, the most that can be said with certainty “is that
Gog is probably a personage, whether described by a title or by name” (“A Fresh Look,”
161).
109 According to Daniel Block, the land of Gog most likely refers to the territory of Lydia
in western Anatolia, but this is less than certain (Daniel I. Block, e Book of Ezekiel:
Chapters 25–48, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998], 434).
110 e expression to;n Gw;g kai; Magwvg (“Gog and Magog”) is an accusative of simple
apposition which refers to ta; e[qnh (“the nations”) earlier in the verse, contra
Alexander (“A Fresh Look,” 166–67), who sees to;n Gw;g kai; Magwvg in appositional
relationship to the entirety of the preceding sentence.
111 e signi cance of this distinction has been denied in two ways. First, it is noted that
Ezekiel’s prophecy identi es nations from the four corners of the earth as members of
Gog’s entourage taking part in the attack (Ezek 38:5, 6, 13; 39:6) (Alexander, “A Fresh
Look,” 167; Kline, “Har Magedon,” 219). But in doing so, Ezekiel continues to maintain
a clear distinction between “Gog and Magog” and the other nations who ally with
them (38:2–7, 15, 22; 39:4), and therefore the primary discrepancy between the two
passages remains: “Gog” is a single ruler and “Magog” is his homeland in Ezekiel 38–
39, but “Gog and Magog” are the nations of the world in Revelation 20. Beale claims
that John “universalizes” Gog and Magog without changing Ezekiel’s “original
contextual intention” (e Book of Revelation, 977), but such a modi cation clearly
demonstrates that Rev 20:7–10 is not a direct ful llment of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Second,
according to White, because many premillennialists agree that the events of Ezekiel
38–39 are ful lled in Rev 19:11–21—and because Gog and Magog are identi ed as the
nations of the earth in Rev 19:15—there can be no premillennial objection to Gog and
Magog being identi ed as the nations of the world in Rev 20:7–10 (White, “Making
Sense of Rev 20:1–10,” 542). But the problem with this argument is that even if Ezekiel
38–39 is ful lled in Rev 19:11–21—as many premillennialists affirm—this does not
mean that Rev 19:15 equates Gog and Magog with the nations of the world. Rev 19:15
portrays the nations of the world taking part in the battle—as does Ezekiel 38–39—but
it does not identify the nations as “Gog and Magog” like Rev 20:7–10 does.
112 omas, Revelation 8–22, 424. As William Webb explains, “John uses Old Testament
traditions more to paint and color his visions, than to provide a precise ‘this is that’
kind ful llment” (“Revelation 20,” 11). According to Webb, the differences between
Ezekiel 38–39 and Rev 20:7–10 suggest “a broad infusion of imagery” rather than
“some kind of speci c, detailed ful llment.”
113 Webb, “Revelation 20,” 11–12. According to Webb, these are paradigmatic ways to refer
to the “classic” enemies of God throughout salvation history without any tight
ful llment formulas. He likens it to the way one might use the terms “Waterloo” and
“Alamo” to color descriptions of present-day con icts. Despite the variety of different
referents suggested for Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon in these passages, this general
approach to the proper names is taken by interpreters on all sides of the millennial
debate.
114 omas, Revelation 8–22, 93.
115 In this way, John’s vision in Rev 20:7–10 “interprets Gog and Magog as symbols of all
the nations gathered together in opposition to Christ and his followers” (Osborne,
Revelation, 712).
116 Johnson, “Revelation,” 587.
117 omas, Revelation 8–22, 423. According to Webb, “With the Gog-and-Magog
imagery (and names) John may be saying (and only saying) that these are the enemies
of God’s people. To argue that John utilizes these traditions beyond a paradigmatic
meaning is much more difficult to prove” (“Revelation 20,” 12). Beale rejects this view
because Gog and Magog—unlike Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon—are part of a speci c
prophecy about the latter days which has remained unful lled (e Book of Revelation,
976), but it is not clear how this distinction undermines the argument for the
paradigmatic use of “Gog and Magog” in Revelation 20. John does not present Rev
20:7–10 as the ful llment of Ezekiel 38–39—he simply refers to the nations of the
world as “Gog and Magog.”
118 According to David MacLeod, during the millennium the defeat of Gog “will become a
legend among the nations, something like Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo. en at the
end of the millennial kingdom the Gog and Magog ‘legend’ is applied to a new
historical situation (20:8), with Satan leading the new ‘Gog and Magog.’ Satan will
meet his ‘Waterloo’—his ‘Gog and Magog’” (“e Fih ‘Last ing,’” 208). is could
be likened to referring to the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, as the “Pearl
Harbor” of today’s generation.
119 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 312; also see White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,”
330.
120 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 312; White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,” 331;
Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 233; Beale, e Book of Revelation, 982.
121 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 312.
122 Ibid.; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 233.
123 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 312–13; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism,
233. Beale’s interpretation of Rev 15:1 is less than clear. In the context of arguing for
the recapitulation view, Beale claims that Rev 15:1 means no divine wrath can be
directed against the nations aer the seventh plague, and therefore Rev 20:8–9 cannot
occur aer an intermediate kingdom between the present age and the eternal state
(e Book of Revelation, 982). But elsewhere, when simply commenting on Rev 15:1
itself, Beale says that this verse does not mean God’s wrath has ended or reached its
completion. Instead, it is a metaphorical way to express that the seven bowls “portray
the full-orbed wrath of God in a more intense manner than any of the previous woe
visions” (788). According to Beale, Rev 15:1 refers to the seven plagues as “the last”
(ta;V ejscavtaV) to indicate “the order in which John saw the visions and not necessarily
the chronological order of their occurrence in history…. erefore, the bowls do not
have to be understood as occurring as the last events of history” (786).
124 White, “Making Sense of Rev 20:1–10,” 547.
125 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 312. As White explains, “God’s wrath, of course,
continues interminably in eternity. John’s statement applies to divine retribution in
history” (“Evidence for Recapitulation,” 330).
126 White argues that God’s wrath is not completed within the time frame of the seven last
plagues according to the premillennial view of Rev 20:7–10 (“Making Sense of Rev
 20:1–10,” 547–48), but neither is it completed within that time frame according to the
amillennial view of Rev 20:11–15.
127 Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 204.
128 Ibid.
129 White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,” 336–43; Venema, e Promise of the Future, 308;
Storms, Kingdom Come, 437.
130 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 308; White, “Evidence for Recapitulation,” 336–43.
131 Storms, Kingdom Come, 437 (emphasis original). According to Venema, “In these
instances, the angel’s ascent or descent occurs at a time clearly prior to the return of
Christ and marks the beginning of a vision whose sequence of events concludes with
the coming of Christ in nal victory over his enemies” (e Promise of the Future, 308).
132 Venema, e Promise of the Future, 308.
133 In fairness, it should be noted that amillennialists do not believe that this pattern
actually proves recapitulation in Revelation 20, but rather that it provides additional
support for this view when taken in conjunction with other factors (White, “Evidence
for Recapitulation,” 336; Storms, Kingdom Come, 437).
134 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 217. According to Blaising, this argument fails on
literary-structural grounds in several ways. First, in each of the three examples (Rev
7:1; 10:1; 18:1), the angelic ascent/descent is distinct from the indicator used in the
larger series, but this is not the case in Rev 20:1. As a result, the angel’s coming down in
Rev 20:1 is a series item just as much as the opening of heaven in 19:11, as the angel
standing in the sun in 19:16, as the assembling of the beast and the kings of the earth
in 19:19, etc. Second, each of the examples involves a message from the angel explicitly
refering to the larger series (7:3; 10:7; 18:2), but no such message appears in Rev 20:1–
10. ird, since the angel in Rev 7:2 ascends instead of descends, this passage is
disquali ed from consideration in a descending angel typology. Fourth, because this
argument ignores the structural signi cance of Rev 10:11 for the two witnesses’ vision
in 11:3–13, it fails to see its structural connection to the visions of Rev 12–14. Fih,
this argument’s attempt to locate Revelation 18 prior to the bowls judgment in
Revelation 16 runs counter to its own typology, because Revelation 18 is not an
interlude in the bowls series. Sixth, for all of its focus on the descending angel in Rev
20:1, this argument makes no appeal to Rev 9:1–6—“the only passage that truly offers a
parallel description to that of 20:1–3”—which “is not a recapitulating vision but rather
part of a visionary sequence, just as is the angel of 20:1” (“Premillennialism,” 216–17;
emphasis original).
135 Beale, e Book of Revelation, 983.
136 Ibid.
 Chapter 15

Conclusion

To formulate a thoroughly biblical eschatology, one must allow every

passage of Scripture to make its own contribution to the doctrine of last
things, including the millennium. is means starting in the Old Testament
and tracing the prophecies of the coming kingdom from Genesis to
Revelation, letting each new biblical passage build upon what was previously
revealed. To honor the unity of Scripture, one must recognize that later
revelation oen supplements and clari es earlier revelation by providing
broader context or additional detail, but it never reinterprets or changes the
meaning of those previous passages in the process. In the end, the biblical
theologian must harmonize his exegesis of all the relevant passages, being
careful not to allow any one of them to silence or distort the contribution of
another. is is the only way to construct an eschatology that synthesizes the
entirety of Scripture’s teaching on the age to come.
In contrast to this approach, the primary argument for amillennialism
exalts a handful of New Testament passages to the position of interpretive
grid and insists on reading the remainder of Scripture through the
hermeneutical lens of the two-age model. is interpretive grid does not
allow the amillennialist to see descriptions of an intermediate kingdom in
the Old Testament, but the more signi cant problem concerns Revelation
20. With the two-age model in hand, the amillennialist comes to the last
book of the Bible with the assumption that Revelation 20 cannot be allowed
to teach a millennial reign of Christ between the Second Coming (Rev 19)
and the eternal state (Rev 21). As a result, he is forced to explain away a very
straightforward sequence of events described in the nal chapters of the
Apocalypse.1
In one sense, the entire debate can be reduced to a single question:
Which is more exegetically feasible—the amillennial interpretation of
Revelation 20 or the premillennial insistence on a gap of time between key
eschatological events described in the New Testament? is critique has
argued that the former consists of a fundamental departure from the
meaning of Revelation 20, whereas the latter simply allows subsequent
revelation to clarify the existence of a temporal gap between various events
prophesied in earlier revelation. e former distorts the meaning of the
most signi cant passage in the millennial debate, while the latter
harmonizes the totality of biblical revelation by appealing to a well-attested
dynamic known as prophetic telescoping.
Amillennialists typically acknowledge the existence of telescoping when
moving from the Old Testament to the New, but they are unwilling to let
Revelation 20 play a clarifying role within the New Testament itself. As
Darrell Bock observes, it is ironic that those who emphasize the prominence
of later revelation as de nitive in so many other areas would argue for a
more limited role of this nal New Testament book in the millennial
debate.2 In response, amillennialists usually charge premillennialism with
giving too much weight to Revelation 20 by letting this “one obscure passage
govern the entire Bible.”3 Sam Storms accuses the premillennialist of
allowing the apocalyptic tail to wag the epistolary dog, describing the
premillennial approach as making the rest of the Bible “bend to the standard
of one text” and “dance to the tune of Revelation 20.”4 Robert Strimple
likewise describes it as setting aside the entire New Testament because of
this single passage in the highly symbolic book of Revelation.5
But the premillennial approach does not use this passage to change or
dismiss the meaning of the remainder of Scripture, as amillennialists oen
claim. Instead, it simply recognizes that Revelation 19–21 contains the
fullest and most comprehensive presentation of the eschatological events
surrounding the Second Coming. As a result, it allows this section of
Scripture to bring greater clarity to the sequence of events that will transpire
in the age to come. As George Eldon Ladd notes, “e fact that the
relationship of these events … is made explicit for the rst time only in the
last verses of the last book of the Bible should pose no acute problem to
those who believe in progressive revelation.”6 e only alternative is to
silence the unmistakably clear contribution of Revelation 20, which Kim
Riddlebarger calls “the most important biblical passage dealing with the
subject of the millennium.”7
If Revelation 20 does indeed teach a millennial reign of Christ between
the present age and the eternal state, the biblical theologian must nd a way
to harmonize this intermediate kingdom with his understanding of the two
ages, regardless of what his interpretive grid will or will not allow. Because
the Old Testament prophets anticipated a phase of the coming kingdom that
corresponds to the millennial reign in John’s vision—and because nothing in
the remainder of Scripture conclusively excludes the possibility of such a
kingdom—there is no reason to reject the plain reading of Revelation 19–21.
e two-age argument for amillennialism will likely continue to be used
as a polemic against premillennialism. But as this critique has demonstrated,
even though the two ages provide a helpful framework for understanding
biblical eschatology, they do not preclude the existence of an intermediate
kingdom. e present age will continue until the Second Coming of Christ,
which will usher in the age to come. In the initial phase of this coming age,
the Lord Jesus will reign on the earth until He has put all His enemies under
His feet. And then, aer the nal enemy is abolished by Christ, He will hand
the kingdom over to the Father and the eternal state will begin so that God
may be all in all (1 Cor 15:23–28).

1 Wayne Grudem, Systematic eology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1994), 1121.
2 Darrell L. Bock, “Summary Essay,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed.
Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1999), 298.
3 William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, 1966), 65.
4 Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: e Amillennial Alternative (Ross-shire, Scotland:
Mentor, 2013), 143.
5 Robert B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in ree Views on the Millennium and Beyond,
ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1999), 120.
6 George Eldon Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1952), 182.
7 Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, expanded
ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013), 223.
 Appendix

e Intermediate Kingdom
in Intertestamental Judaism

The difficulty in constructing an accurate picture of intertestamental

Jewish eschatology stems from the variety of different viewpoints
represented during this time.1 Moreover, because the ancient sources do not
offer systematic descriptions of their views, the eschatological chronology is
frequently ambiguous in a given writing, making it difficult to discern a
clear sequence of events within a single source, much less among Judaism as
a whole.2 In spite of the ambiguity, however, it is possible to identify a
common set of core beliefs, particularly because eschatological thought
appears to assume more structure and agreement as it moves toward the end
of the intertestamental period.3
One such widely embraced belief—solidi ed later in the era—was the
view that there are two distinct ages within the period of redemption,
designated “the rst age” and “the age that follows” in 2 Esdras 6:6–7.4
According to this paradigm, redemptive history will unfold in a two-age
framework—“this age” inaugurated by creation, and “the age to come”
inaugurated by the Day of the Lord (1 Enoch 71:15; cf. 48:7).5 Although the
attestation of this terminology is limited prior to AD 70, some scholars trace
the doctrine of the two ages—as well as the origin of the terminology “this
age” and “the age to come”—to the apocalyptic writings of the rst century
BC.6 According to Larry Helyer, however, modern scholarship generally
“pushes the origins of this concept back into the second century BC, if not
earlier.”7
is distinction between the two ages was fundamental to the
intertestamental worldview.8 e former age was expected to come to an
end through direct divine intervention, either the entrance of God Himself
into human history or the appearance of God’s agent—one or more
messianic gures—through whom He would accomplish His will.9 e latter
age was seen as the nal culmination of God’s victory over hostile forces
when He would defeat Satan and the powers of evil and reassert His right to
rule over the universe.10 is concept of the two ages was well established by
the time of the New Testament and therefore is simply assumed by Jesus and
the biblical writers, as evidenced by the abundance of references to “this age”
and/or “the age to come” (e.g., Matt 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:34–
35; Eph 1:21).11
e fundamental feature common to most intertestamental expectations
for the nal age was the renewal of the Davidic kingdom in which the
Messiah would ful ll the promises of eternal kingship and the nation of
Israel would be restored to its previous political, geographical, and spiritual
grandeur.12 As J. Julius Scott explains:

It was looked to as a time of unparalleled joy and gladness. ere

would be peace among individuals and nations; the wild beasts
would lose their ferocity. e life span of human beings would
increase, sickness and pain (including that of childbearing) would be
eliminated. Labor and work would lose their tiresome
characteristics…. Above all, the messianic age would be a time when
the earth shall be cleansed from all de lement and from sin…. All
nations will ock to the Jerusalem temple to worship. e rule of the
Messiah will be universal and characterized by righteousness, for the
dominating mark of the messianic age will be universal obedience to
the law.13

In spite of this consensus on the two-age view of history in general and

the primary features of the kingdom in particular, the intertestamental
understanding of the age to come also included a great deal of diversity.14
One of the most signi cant developments in this era concerned the notion
of an intermediate reign of Messiah prior to the eternal state. Although this
would be widely affirmed later in the period,15 the prevailing idea in the
earlier stages of intertestamental literature was that the messianic kingdom
would come as the nal act in redemptive history, the climax which ushered
in the eternal enjoyment of God’s blessings to His people.16 As Scott
explains, “ose who anticipated the inauguration of the nal age and the
consummation to occur simultaneously expected the new world to appear
immediately.”17 According to this view, when divine intervention brings the
present age to a close, the eternal state of the coming age will begin.
is view persisted in the intertestamental period until about 100 BC,
when the belief emerged that the blessings of a timeless eternity in heaven
would be preceded by a temporary kingdom on earth.18 Here, for the rst
time in the literature, a clear distinction was made between the messianic
kingdom and the nal state of eternity. In the former—eventually designated
“the days of Messiah” by the rabbis19—a temporary intermediate kingdom
would be established on earth at the coming of the Messiah. is resulted in
a three-fold division of redemptive history: this world (the present age), the
times of Messiah (an intermediate kingdom), and the world to come (the
eternal state).20
As Hélène Dallaire observes, “e notion that the Messiah will rule and
reign on earth for a speci c amount of time went through major
developments in the Jewish literature of the intertestamental and rabbinic
periods.”21 e earliest extant reference to a temporary messianic kingdom
prior to the eternal state is found in 1 Enoch 91–103 (ca. 168 BC).22 In 1
Enoch 91:12–17 and 93:1–10, the history of the world is divided into ten
periods of time called “weeks,” ultimately yielding a chronology of the
present age, followed by the messianic kingdom, followed by the eternal
state.23 is view of an intermediate kingdom is also found in the Qumran
Commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab 2:3b),24—which dates from the
second half of the rst century BC25—and in the Psalms of Solomon (70–40
BC),26 also composed in the rst century BC.27 In addition, it is possibly
found in Jubilees 23:26–31 (153–105 BC), which “mentions, but in a rather
ambiguous context, a period of one thousand years.”28 According to D. S.
Russell, “In the majority of the later apocalyptic writings especially, the
sequence is ‘this age’ followed by ‘the messianic kingdom’ followed by ‘the
age to come.’”29
e idea of a temporary messianic kingdom prior to the nal state not
only continued into the rst century AD, but it was also “conceived in more
de nite and precise terms.”30 Around AD 50, 2 Enoch 25–33 sets forth an
intermediate period of one thousand years between the “end of creation”
and the eternal age.31 Later in the rst century, 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) 7:26–44
indicates that “when the Messiah is revealed, he reigns on earth with the
righteous for a period of four hundred years.”32 is extended period of
peace will be followed by seven days of silence, aer which a resurrection of
the dead will occur, followed by a day of reckoning known as “the nal
judgment,” which ushers in the eternal state.33 Also, late in the rst century,
2 Baruch teaches that the kingdom of the Messiah is temporary and will
endure until the world of corruption comes to an end (24:1–4; 30:1–5; 39:3–
8; 40:1–4; 72–74; 44:14).34
According to Helyer, although the evidence just considered appears to
indicate that a belief in a temporary, messianic kingdom was con ned to
sectarian, apocalyptic circles, other texts suggest that the notion was more
widespread.35 For example, the Samaritans held a very old tradition of a
temporary, messianic kingdom lasting one thousand years,36 and the
Talmud and Midrash indicate that it had been widely incorporated into
rabbinic Judaism.37 In fact, this belief became so pervasive by the early
rabbinical period that the primary debate among the rst- and early second-
century rabbis concerned not the existence of a temporary earthly kingdom
but rather its duration.38
e time frames attributed to the messianic age by the rabbis varied
between 40 and 7,000 years, depending on their interpretation of canonical
and non-canonical texts.39 Despite the lack of consensus on the length of the
messianic era, however, it was agreed that its duration is nite and that it
forms an intermediate period between the present age and the eternal
state.40 In addition, in the latter part of the rst century “there was also a
very de nite proposal on the part of certain teachers to place the limit at
1,000 years.”41 Despite the diversity of opinion, all were in agreement that
“the Days of the Messiah are of limited duration.”42
Between 100 BC and AD 100, then, a clear consensus of Jewish thought
embraced the concept of a temporary messianic kingdom prior to the
eternal state.43 Despite this widespread agreement, some degree of
confusion existed during this time regarding the precise relationship
between this temporary kingdom and the terminology “the age/world to
come.” Sometimes the intermediate kingdom and the “age to come” are
clearly distinguished—with the former being portrayed as a transitional
stage between this world and the world to come—and other times the two
cannot be separated, being either confused or referred to interchangeably.44
Because of this ambiguity, it is difficult to identify with certainty the
precise referent of “the age to come” in Jewish thought at the time of the
New Testament. But regardless of whether (a) the age to come = the
intermediate kingdom, (b) the age to come = the eternal state (with the
intermediate kingdom viewed as a transitional phase between the present
age and the eternal state), or (c) the age to come = the intermediate kingdom
and the eternal state, one thing is clear: e two-age model of rst-century
Judaism was considered to be perfectly compatible with a temporary
kingdom of Messiah between the present age and the eternal state. For this
reason, when Jesus and the New Testament writers referred to “this age”
and/or “the age to come,” this terminology was understood by their original
audience as consistent with the belief in an intermediate kingdom of
Messiah that would precede the nal state of perfection.45

1 J. Julius Scott, Jr., Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1995), 284; D. S. Russell, e Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BC
– AD 100 (Philadephia: e Westminster Press, 1964), 286.
2 Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament, 284.
3 Ibid., 285. At the same time, Scott continues by issuing the caution that this “must not
be allowed to obscure the variety within the intertestamental views of the nal age.”
4 Ibid., 271–72. According to Scott, these two ages are also attested to in the Dead Sea
Scrolls: 2 Esdras 7:3–44, 113; 8:1; 1 Enoch 16:1; 71:15; 2 Bar 14:13–19; 15:7; and
Mishnah Aboth 4:1; 6:4, 7 (226, 271).
5 Larry R. Helyer, “e Necessity, Problems, and Promise of Second Temple Judaism for
Discussions of New Testament Eschatology,” JETS 47, no. 4 (Dec 2004), 597.
6 Hermann Sasse, “aijw:n,” in TDNT, ed. Gerhard Kittel [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1964], 1:206–7; Haïm Z’ew Hirschberg, “Eschatology,” in Encyclopaedia
Judaica (New York: e MacMillan Company, 1971), 6:874.
7 Helyer, “Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Eschatology,” 598.
8 J. W. Bailey, “e Temporary Messianic Reign in the Literature of Early Judaism,” JBL
53, no. 1 (1934): 170.
9 Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament, 272.
10 Ibid. According to Scott, “Intertestamental writers use a number of terms to refer to
the whole or a part of that age which was expected to follow God’s breaking into
human history” (287). Some of the more common ones are “the day,” “the day of the
Lord,” “in that (those) day(s),” “the last days,” “the nal age,” “the messianic age,” “the
days of Messiah,” “the kingdom (of God),” “the coming age,” “the world to come,” “the
hour,” and “the time.”
11 Helyer, “Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Eschatology,” 598; Scott, Jewish
Backgrounds of the New Testament, 271, 286; W. D. Davies, e Setting of the Sermon on
the Mount (London: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 182–83; Geerhardus Vos, e
Pauline Eschatology (1930; repr., Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, 1994), 14, 16, 28. Sometimes the New Testament refers only to this age
(Matt 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 1:20; 1 Cor 2:6, 8; 3:18; 2 Cor 4:4; Gal
1:4; Eph 2:2; 1 Tim 6:17–19; Titus 2:12); other times it refers only to the age to come
(Heb 6:5); and still other times it refers to both this age and the age to come (Matt
12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:34–35; Eph 1:21). As Kaiser writes, “Just as
intertestamental Judaism expressed a divine division in time between ‘this age’ and the
‘age to come,’ so the New Testament follows suit and uses the same terms and similar
concepts” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Preaching and Teaching the Last ings: Old Testament
Eschatology for the Life of the Church [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011], xv).
Kaiser refers to this as the New Testament writers using “the traditional Jewish concept
of the ‘two ages’” (ibid.).
12 Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament, 288–89. According to Scott, “e nal
resurrection, last judgment, and renovation of nature and the social order were also
important components of the nal age” (288).
13 Ibid., 289–90; also see Hélène Dallaire, “Judaism and the World to Come,” in A Case
for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to “Le Behind” Eschatology, eds. Craig L.
Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 39–40. As
Scott points out, 2 Baruch 73 summarizes the nal age like this: “And it will happen
that aer he has brought down everything which is in the world, and has sat down in
eternal peace on the throne of the kingdom, then joy will be revealed and rest will
appear. And then health will descend in dew, and illness will vanish, and fear and
tribulation and lamentation will pass away from among men, and joy will encompass
the earth. And nobody will again die untimely, nor will any adversity take place
suddenly. Judgment, condemnations, contentions, revenges, blood, passions, zeal, hate,
and all such things will go into condemnation since they will be uprooted. For these
are the things that have lled this earth with evils, and because of them life of men
 came in yet greater confusion. And the wild beasts will come from the wood and serve
men, and the asps and dragons will come out of their holes to subject themselves to a
child. And women will no longer have pain when they bear, nor will they be tormented
when they yield the fruit of their womb” (Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament,
289–90).
14 Russell, e Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 286; Scott, Jewish Backgrounds
of the New Testament, 290–94.
15 Russell, e Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 286.
16 Ibid. ese intertestamental writers affirmed “that with the divine intervention into
history the nal age (whether it was viewed as the messianic age or the kingdom of
God) would begin immediately and be eternal” (Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New
Testament, 292). According to Charles, “Before the year 100 B.C. it was generally
believed in Judaism that the Messianic Kingdom would last forever on the present
earth” (R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St.
John, vol. 2, ICC [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1970], 142) (emphasis original).
17 Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament, 293. According to Russell, “At this
stage of writing men were not concerned to look at anything which might lie beyond
the kingdom itself. It was an end in itself. is was the climax of history in which the
blessings of God, both material and spiritual, would be their portion. It was the
religious and political ful lment of their national history” (e Method and Message of
Jewish Apocalyptic, 286).
18 R. H. Charles, Eschatology, the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism, and
Christianity: A Critical History (New York, Schocken Books, 1963), 179–80; Charles,
e Revelation of St. John, 142; Russell, e Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic,
291; Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament, 292. According to Schaff, “It was
developed shortly before and aer Christ in the apocalyptic literature, as the Book of
Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, 4th Esdras, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
and the Sibylline Books” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed.
[Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006], 2:614).
19 A. Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud (New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1949), 356. Scott,
Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament, 292; George Eldon Ladd, e Presence of the
Future: e Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1974), 92.
20 George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: e Age of
Tannaim, vols. 2 and 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1960), 2:378.
21 Dallaire, “Judaism and the World to Come,” 39.
22 Charles, Eschatology, 188; Helyer, “Second Temple Judaism and New Testament
Eschatology,” 602; Bailey, “e Temporary Messianic Reign,” 172; Russell, e Method
and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 291–92; Abba Hillel Silver, A History of Messianic
Speculation in Israel: From the First rough the Seventeenth Centuries (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1959), 5. is conclusion is disputed by some (e.g., Larry Kreitzer, Jesus and God
in Paul’s Eschatology [Sheffield: JSOT, 1987], 32–37), but Helyer ably defends this view
 (“Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Eschatology,” 604–5), and it appears to
be the general consensus among scholars.
23 Bailey, “e Temporary Messianic Reign,” 172; Charles, Eschatology, 188–89; Helyer,
“Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Eschatology,” 602–4; George W. E.
Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: e Hermeneia Translation
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 10; Russell, e Method and Message of Jewish
Apocalyptic, 291. In these passages in 1 Enoch—known as “the Apocalypse of
Weeks”—the present age starts at biblical creation and runs throughout the rst seven
weeks; the messianic kingdom is established in the eighth week; the nal judgment of
the wicked occurs in the ninth week; and the eternal state arrives in the tenth week,
ushering in “many weeks without number forever” (Bailey, “e Temporary Messianic
Reign,” 172–73; Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 10; Russell, e Method and
Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 291–92). In this presentation of redemptive history, the
Messianic era extends through the eighth and ninth weeks and through the rst seven
parts of the tenth week, when the new heavens and new earth are created (Bailey, “e
Temporary Messianic Reign,” 172). Although 1 Enoch 10 and 11 appear to be less
de nitive than 1 Enoch 91–103, they also re ect the same general conception of a
temporary Messianic period followed by a day of general judgment, followed by a
period of eternal duration (ibid., 173).
24 Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament, 293.
25 According to Knibb, “e manuscript dates from the second half of the rst century
BC, but the work was probably composed before this” (Michael A. Knibb, e Qumran
Community [London: e Cambridge University Press, 1987], 221).
26 Charles, Eschatology, 267–72; Joseph Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of
Jesus, trans. William Wolf (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964), 175; Silver,
A History of Messianic Speculation, 5.
27 Michael Lattke, “Psalms of Solomon,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds.
Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000),
853; Charles, Eschatology, 267.
28 Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament, 293; also see Charles, Eschatology,
235–40; Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Jesus, 211. According to Bailey,
this interpretation of Jubilees 23:26–31 “is apparently correct but cannot be affirmed
with absolute certainty” (“e Temporary Messianic Reign,” 175); according to Helyer,
“While it is possible that the author of Jubilees believed in a temporary, messianic
kingdom, the evidence is even less certain than in 1 Enoch” (“Second Temple Judaism
and New Testament Eschatology,” 605); according to Russell, “We may detect the idea
of a temporary kingdom” in the Book of Jubilees and yet the evidence for this kingdom
is “much less clear” than in 1 Enoch 91–104 (e Method and Message of Jewish
Apocalyptic, 292); and according to Charles the messianic kingdom in these psalms is
“apparently of temporary duration” (Eschatology, 270).
29 Russell, e Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 291. Despite the widespread
consensus on the larger issue of an intermediate kingdom, disagreement continued on
whether there would be a single nal judgment or a series of judgments: “Some seem
 to have expected the nal judgment to precede the arrival of the messianic kingdom
and the righteous to be raised to share in it forever. In other writings, such as 1 Enoch
91–104, the judgment comes at the close of the kingdom; but the righteous are not
raised to share it, but later enjoy a blessed immortality. Second Baruch 50:4 also seems
to allude to a judgment aer the conclusion of the kingdom, and 2 Esdras speaks of it
in even more detail. e righteous will be accepted into paradise to occupy the high
places and to behold the majesty of God. e wicked will be cast into Gehenna, which
is characterized by re and intense suffering” (Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New
Testament, 293–94).
30 Bailey, “e Temporary Messianic Reign,” 180.
31 Ibid., 180–81; Charles, Eschatology, 299, 315–20. According to Bailey (“e Temporary
Messianic Reign,” 181) and Charles (Eschatology, 315), this is the oldest passage in
Jewish literature which explicitly re ects an intermediate kingdom of one thousand
years. Helyer is less dogmatic, referring to 2 Enoch as a “possible candidate” in
providing support for the belief in an interim, messianic kingdom (“Second Temple
Judaism and New Testament Eschatology,” 605). According to Helyer, “ere is no
explicit mention of a messiah and so we cannot, without quali cation, say a temporary,
messianic kingdom” (606).
32 Helyer, “Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Eschatology,” 606; also see Bailey,
“e Temporary Messianic Reign,” 183–84; Charles, Eschatology, 299, 341–42; Dallaire,
“Judaism and the World to Come,” 41–42; Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time
of Jesus, 211; Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament, 292–93; Moore, Judaism,
2:338–39.
33 Dallaire, “Judaism and the World to Come,” 41; Bailey, “e Temporary Messianic
Reign,” 183–84; Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Jesus, 175, 211; Sasse,
“aijwvn, aijwvnioV,” 206. According to Russell, even though there is some inconsistency
in 2 Esdras, the picture presented there is clearly that of an intermediate kingdom on
earth lasting 400 years, followed by the eternal state in heaven (e Method and
Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 295–96). As Russell writes, “e temporary earthly
kingdom passes and the eternal heavenly kingdom is ushered in. e ‘days of the
Messiah’ give place to ‘the age to come’” (e Method and Message of Jewish
Apocalyptic, 296–97). Bailey refers to this as “one of the most signi cant writings of the
entire period” (“e Temporary Messianic Reign,” 183).
34 Bailey, “e Temporary Messianic Reign,” 182; Charles, Eschatology, 322–30; Helyer,
“Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Eschatology,” 607–8; Russell, e Method
and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 293–95; Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New
Testament, 292; Moore, Judaism, 2:339; Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of
Jesus, 175. At the same time, according to Russell, although 2 Baruch envisions “a
temporary kingdom on this earth to be followed by an eternity in heaven,” there is
some “lack of consistency in its teaching in this regard” (e Method and Message of
Jewish Apocalyptic, 293). Similarly, Helyer writes, “is composition gives the most
detailed description of a temporary, messianic kingdom, though it must be confessed
 that there are a number of inconsistencies in this regard” (“Second Temple Judaism
and New Testament Eschatology,” 607).
35 Helyer, “Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Eschatology,” 608.
36 Ibid., who points to Bailey (“e Temporary Messianic Reign,” 179) for references to
scholarly studies of this issue.
37 Helyer, “Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Eschatology,” 608. At the same
time, the earlier Mishnah “is very reticent with regard to eschatological matters and
does not mention it at all” (ibid.). Helyer concludes that a temporary, messianic
kingdom was also affirmed by the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, since the rabbinic sources
attribute this teaching to sages descended from the Pharisees (614).
38 Moore, Judaism, 2:375–76; Bailey, “e Temporary Messianic Reign,” 185; Dallaire,
“Judaism and the World to Come,” 39–41. ere was also signi cant disagreement
regarding the nature of this intermediate kingdom (Silver, A History of Messianic
Speculation, 14–15). For example, “According to some Jewish authors, during the
messianic age, everyone will worship one God and will live in a perfect, harmonious,
and peaceful society. According to others, the era between this worldly existence and
eternal bliss for the righteous in the world to come will nd the earth desolate with
God highly exalted over his creation. Both of these views, along with numerous others,
appear in rabbinic literature” (Dallaire, “Judaism and the World to Come,” 39–40).
39 Dallaire, “Judaism and the World to Come,” 40. e estimates of the various rabbis are
listed by Bailey, “e Temporary Messianic Reign,” 184–87; Helyer, “Second Temple
Judaism and New Testament Eschatology,” 609; Dallaire, “Judaism and the World to
Come,” 39–41; Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud, 356; Jacob Neusner and William Scott
Green, eds., e Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period: 450 B.C.E. to 600 C.E.
(New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1996), 1:203; Moore, Judaism in the First
Centuries, 2:375–76; Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Jesus, 212–13; Silver,
A History of Messianic Speculation, 13–15; Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New
Testament, 292–93; and G. K. Beale, e Book of Revelation, NIGTC (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1999), 1018–19. According to these sources, the rabbis
suggested the following durations for the temporary messianic kingdom: Eliezer ben
Hyrcanus (ca. AD 90): 40, 100, 400, or 1,000 years; Joshua (ca. AD 90): 2,000 years;
Eleazar ben Azariah (ca. AD 100): 70 years; Joseph ben Galilee (ca. AD 110): 60 years;
Akiba (ca. AD 135): 40 years; Jose the Galilean (ca. AD 120): 1,000 years; Eliezer ben
Joseph of Galilee (ca. AD 150): 400 years; Dosa (AD 180): 400 or 600 years; Judah ha-
Nasi (late 2nd century AD): 365 years; Kattina: 1,000 years; Abaye: 2,000 years; and
Abimi ben Abbahu: 7,000 years. At the same time, some rabbis—such as Hillel in
Sanhedrin 99a—denied the possibility of a future messianic age.
40 Moore, Judaism, 2:376; Bailey, “e Temporary Messianic Reign,” 185.
41 Bailey, “e Temporary Messianic Reign,” 187. For example, the apocalyptic 2 Enoch—
usually dated in the late rst century AD—indicates a belief that the history of the
world will last for 6,000 years and then be followed by 1,000 years of “rest” when God
will establish His kingdom (Russell, e Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic,
293). Russell refers to this as “the beginnings of a belief in a millennium, in the literal
 sense of a kingdom which is to last 1,000 years.” e earliest rabbi to calculate the Days
of Messiah to be 1,000 years in length was Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (ca. AD 90),
“though he probably learned the thousand-year reign from earlier rabbinic tradition”
(Beale, e Book of Revelation, 1019).
42 Moore, Judaism, 2:376.
43 Bailey, “e Temporary Messianic Reign,” 187; Charles, Eschatology, 167–361; Russell,
e Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 297. According to Charles, in the rst
century AD “in all cases only a transitory Messianic kingdom is expected”
(Eschatology, 360). Although consulting rabbinic Judaism to identify Jewish thought at
the time of the New Testament oen leads to reading later ideas back into the rst
century, the strength of the argument here is found in the consistency among the
Jewish writers from the mid-apocalyptic era to the early rabbinic era (100 BC to AD
100) on the existence of an intermediate messianic kingdom.
44 Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament, 292–93. Also see Russell, e Method
and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 296–97; Neusner and Green, e Dictionary of
Judaism, 1:203; Joseph Klausner, e Messianic Idea in Israel from Its Beginning to the
Completion of the Mishnah, trans. W. F. Stinespring (London: George Allen and Unwin
Ltd, 1956), 408–19; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements
in Pauline eology (Mifflintown, PA: Sigler Press, 1998), 316; Cohen, Everyman’s
Talmud, 356; Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Jesus, 205–6; Davies, e
Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, 182; Ladd, e Presence of the Future, 92; Robert
H. Gundry, e Church and the Tribulation: A Biblical Examination of
Posttribulationism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1999), 142. is ambiguity
does not appear to be re ected in the argument of some who identify the age to come
exclusively with the intermediate kingdom (e.g., omas Ice, “Ages of Time,” in e
Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, eds. Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson [Eugene,
OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2004], 15; George N. H. Peters, e eocratic
Kingdom, vol. 2 [1884; repr., Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications, 1972], 404–5).
45 When Riddlebarger introduces his two-age model as an interpretive grid which
precludes the existence of an intermediate kingdom, he acknowledges that the age to
come is “a technical term in Jewish eschatology, designating the nal state aer the
messianic reign” (Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End
Times, expanded ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013], 298). But he relegates this
observation to an endnote, and he fails to comment further on the Jewish background
of the two-age terminology or to discuss the implications it may have on the
signi cance of these designations in the New Testament.
 Scripture Index

Genesis
1:26 11
1:28 51, 53
3:14 141, 145
3:14–19 143
3:17–19 141, 145
3:22 11
5 33
6:2 188
6:3 33–34
9:1 51, 53
11:7 11
17:6 51, 53
20:16 251

Exodus
1:7 51, 53
12:13 56
20:5–6 245, 254
20:12 51–52
23:16 63
34:22 63

Leviticus
23:33–43 56, 63
23:33–44 55
26:4 56
26:9 51, 53
26:19–20 56

Deuteronomy
1:11 245
4:4 51
5:33 51–52
6:2 51–52
7:9 245, 254
7:14 51, 53
11:8–9 51–52
16:13–17 55–56, 63
25:5 103
28:12 56
28:24 56

Joshua
23:10 245

Judges
15:15–16 251

1 Kings
17:1 56

2 Kings
22:19 71

1 Chronicles
16:15 245
29:21 251

2 Chronicles
15:3 71

Ezra
1:8 252
1:9 251–52
1:10 251–52

Job
1:6 71
1:7 206
9:3 245

Psalms
2 57, 293
2:9 144
8:6 156
28:1 71
30:3 71
33:6 71
40:2 71
45:6–7 11
50:10 245, 254
50:10–11 245, 254
66:3 57
72 21–22
72:1–20 10, 15, 20–22, 83, 92, 105
72:2 82
72:2–4 82
72:4 82
72:7 82
72:7–8 82
72:9 82
72:11 82
72:12 82
72:12–13 82
72:13 82
72:14 82
72:16–17 82
72:19 82
77:16 183
78:15 183
84:10 245, 254
88:4 71
90 253
90:4 245–46, 252–54
90:10 34
105:8 245
106:9 183
110:1 11, 156
142:8 71
143:7 71

Proverbs
1:12 71
3:2 51

Ecclesiastes
5:18–20 252
6:1–2 252
6:1–6 252
6:3 253
6:3–5 252
6:6 246, 252–53
7:28 245

Song of Solomon
4:4 245
Isaiah
2:1–3 10, 15, 20, 23, 25, 83, 92, 105
2:2–4 22–27
2:3 56
2:4 56, 78, 82
6:8 11
9:6–7 13, 112, 214
11 28–30
11:1–9 10, 15, 20, 28–30, 83, 92, 105
11:3–5 82
11:4 57, 82
11:6–8 42, 144
11:6–9 82
11:9 82
11:9–17 293
11:10–16 278
13–23 70
13:6 133
13:9 133
13:13 137
14:12 202
14:12–15 203
14:15 71
24 132
24–25 132
24–27 70, 75, 79
24:1–20 70, 73, 75
24:1–22 132
24:17–20 75, 80
24:20–23 183
24:21 132
24:21–22 132
24:21–23 14, 20, 69–83, 92, 105, 123, 127, 206
24:22 123, 127, 132
25 75, 145
25–27 78
25:6 77
25:6–8 69, 72, 132
25:7 77
25:7–8 39
25:7–9 163
25:8 33–34, 36, 38, 41, 44, 61, 163, 166–67, 169
25:9 70, 76
25:10 77
26:1 70, 76
27:1 70, 76
27:2 70, 76
27:12 70, 76
27:12–13 77
27:13 70, 76, 168
29:18 144
30:23–25 144
32:13–15 144
33:24 144
34:4 137
35:1 143
35:1–2 144
35:1–7 145
35:5–6 144
35:7 144
38:18 71
40:1–5 13, 214
40:26 71
41:18 144
42:7 71
45:12 71
48:16 11
51:6 137
55:10 183
55:12 260
60:22 245
61:1 11
61:1–2 13–14, 29, 126, 214
63:10 11
65 145
65:17 139
65:17–25 10, 15, 20, 31–45, 92, 105, 137–39
65:18–25 139
65:20 51, 61–62, 72, 82–83, 143–44, 170, 278
65:22 82, 144
65:25 144
65–66 37
66:1 240
66:15–16 136
66:22 36, 136
66:22–24 35, 137
66:24 66

Jeremiah
29:10–14 13, 214
30–33 47
31:12 145
31:31–34 63
31:33 26
35:7 71

Ezekiel
16:46 293
26:20 71
28:11–19 203
31:14 71
31:16 71
34:16 144
34:25–29 145
34:26–29 145
36–39 47
36:6–9 145
36:27 26
36:29–30 145
36:35 145
38 283
38–39 59, 283, 287, 289–94
39 283
40–48 64
44:25 144
44:27 144

Daniel
2:44 137
4:32 71
6:17 177, 189
7:1–28 59
7:14 137
7:18 137
8:10 71
9:26–27 59
10:13 71
11:36–12:17 59
12:2 7, 15, 87, 107–8, 110, 112, 212–14

Hosea
1:2 11
1:7 11
3:4–5 71
13:14 166–67, 169

Joel
1:15 133
2:1 133, 168
2:11 133, 286–287
2:21–27 145
2:28–32 13, 214
2:30–31 136
2:31 133
3 132
3:1–17 59, 132
3:2 287
3:14 133
3:16 137
3:18–21 132

Amos
4:7–8 56
7:4 183
9:13–14 145
9:13–15 145

Obadiah
1–14 133
15–21 133

Micah
3:12 23
4:1–3 22–27
4:2 56
4:2–4 10, 15, 20, 23, 83, 92, 105
4:3 82
4:11–5:1 59

Zephaniah
1:4 286
1:7 133
1:14 133
1:16 168

Haggai
1:11 56
2:6–7 137

Zechariah
8:1–3 48, 51–52
8:1–8 48
8:3 52
8:4 82
8:4–5 15, 20, 48–54, 82–83, 92
8:6–8 51–52
8:11–12 145
9:9–10 13, 214
9:10 112
9:14 168
12–14 287
12:1–7 59
12:4 61–62
14:1–21 48, 67
14:2–14 286
14:4 82
14:7 82
14:8–11 54
14:9 57, 82
14:11 143
14:12–15 54, 68
14:15 61
14:16 82
14:16–19 10, 15, 20, 48, 50, 54–68, 83, 92, 105, 144
14:16–21 57–58, 62–64, 278
14:17 68
14:17–19 82, 143–44, 170
14:20–21 62

Malachi
3:1–2 11
3:1–3 136
4:1 136

Matthew
4:1–11 179, 198
5:17 62
12 198, 200
12:25–28 199
12:28 200, 203
12:29 196–201, 203
12:32 3, 6, 87–90, 93, 95, 98, 100, 306
12:39–42 108
12:43 66
13:19 178, 191
13:30 65
13:39 2–3, 99–100, 107, 306
13:39–40 115
13:40 2–3, 99–100, 306
13:49 2–3, 99–100, 306
13:49–50 115
21:19 92
22:32 235, 238
24:1–41 121
24:3 2–3, 97, 99–100, 306
24:9–13 119
24:14 119
24:31 117
24:38–44 277
24:42–51 138
24:43 137
25:31–46 7, 15, 55, 87, 107, 114–24, 126, 276–77
25:46 101
27–28 198
27:66 177, 189
28:1 60
28:18–20 119
28:20 2–3, 97, 99–100, 306

Mark
3:4 229, 239
3:29 89, 92
4:15 178
4:17 150–51
4:28 151
6:44 252
7:5 151
8:25 151–52
10:22 101
10:28 101
10:29–30 89, 101
10:30 3, 7, 87, 93, 97–98, 100–2, 306
11:14 92
12:26–27 227
13:32–37 138
16:1 60
Luke
1:32–33 137
1:33 91
1:55 92
2:34 210, 219
4:1–13 179, 198, 202
4:13 199
4:16 29
4:16–21 13–14, 214
4:18–19 29
6:9 229, 239
6:51 92
6:58 92
8:12 150–52, 178
8:26–30 184
8:27 185
8:28 184–85
8:29 185
8:31 78, 81, 178, 184–86, 188
8:32 184–85
8:33 184–85
8:35 92
8:51 92
8:52 92
9:56 229, 239
10 202
10:17–18 196–97, 201–3
10:17–20 201
10:28 92
11:17–23 202
11:26 92
11:29–32 108
12:34 92
12:39 137
13:8 92
14:14 114
14:16 92
15:32 209
16:7 151
16:19–31 73, 122–23, 126
16:24 66
17:22–37 277
18:23 101
18:28 101
18:29–30 101
18:30 3, 7, 87, 93, 97–98, 100–2, 306
20:27–28 103
20:28–33 104
20:29–30 104
20:33 104
20:34 97
20:34–35 3, 93, 100, 306
20:34–36 7, 50, 53, 87, 102–5
20:35 113–14
20:35–36 98
20:37–38 104
20:38 235, 238
21:25–36 138
22 63
22:31 178
24:43 277

John
3:36 101
4:14 92
4:21 111, 214
4:23 111, 214
4:38 65
5 236
5:24–30 121
5:25 111, 214
5:25–27 228–29
5:25–29 227–28
5:28–29 7, 15, 87, 107–12, 212–14, 228–29
5:29 110, 213, 219
7:37 66
8:44 178
11:7 151
11:25 211, 227, 238
12:31 178
12:31–32 196–97, 203–5
12:40 191
13:5 151–52
14:30 178
15:8 51–53
16:2 111, 214
16:11 178
17:3 101
19:27 151–52
20:27 150–52

Acts
1:3 211, 238, 277
2:36 156–57
2:41 229, 239
2:43 229, 239
3:23 229, 239
4:2 113
5:3 178
7:14 229, 239
9:41 211, 238
15:26 229, 239
17:31 113
17:32 113
23:6 113
24:15 7, 15, 87, 107–8, 110, 112, 159, 212–14
24:21 113
26:18 178
27:37 229, 239

Romans
1:4 113
1:25 91
2:7 101
2:9 229, 239
6:4 224
6:4–6 227
6:11 224
8 141–45, 170
8:10–11 227
8:16–23 129
8:17 170
8:17–23 7, 15, 87, 142, 170
8:18 170
8:18–23 7, 15, 87, 107, 139–45
8:19 170
8:21 170
8:23 170
9:5 91
10:4 62
10:7 184
11:36 91
12:2 2–3, 97, 99–100, 306
13:1 229, 239
14:9 209, 238
16:27 91

1 Corinthians
1:20 2–3, 97, 99–100, 306
2:6 2–3, 99–100, 306
2:6–8 97
2:8 99–100, 306
3:18 2–3, 99–100, 306
4:8 156
5:7 63
6:1–3 156
6:9–10 98
7:5 178
8 2–3
8:13 92
10:4 66
12:28 151
15 147, 218–20, 222–23
15:5 151
15:5–7 150–51
15:6 151
15:7 151
15:12 113
15:13 113
15:18 160
15:20–28 7, 15, 87, 107, 147–61
15:21 113
15:22 217
15:23 162, 167
15:23–26 168
15:23–28 137, 167, 303
15:24 165, 167
15:24–25 164, 167
15:24–26 162, 167
15:24–28 123
15:25 143, 165
15:25–26 132
15:26 167
15:27–28 167
15:42–49 217
15:45 229, 239
15:46 151
15:47 224
15:50 98
15:50–57 7, 15, 87, 107, 147, 161–70
15:51–52 277
15:54–55 148

2 Corinthians
2:11 178
4:3–4 191
4:4 2–3, 97, 99–100, 178, 191–92, 195, 306
9:9 92
11:3 178
11:13–15 178
11:31 91
12:7 178

Galatians
1:4 2–3, 97, 99–100, 306
1:5 91
1:18 151
1:21 151
2:1 151
4:26 24
5:21 98
5:22 51
5:22–23 52–53

Ephesians
1:20–23 156–57
1:21 3, 6, 87–88, 90, 93, 95, 100, 306
2:1 211
2:1–7 227
2:2 2–3, 97, 99–100, 178, 306
2:4–7 211
2:5 224, 227
2:7 3, 91–92
4:27 178
5:5 98
6:11–17 178

Philippians
2:9–11 156
3:11 113–14
3:21 218
4:20 91

Colossians
1:13 66
2:12–13 227
2:15 78, 81, 191, 196–97, 203–5
3:1 224, 227

1 essalonians
1:10 138
2:18 178
3:5 178
4:13–18 170, 277
4:17 150–51
5:2 133, 137
5:4 137

2 essalonians
1:6–10 7, 15, 87, 107, 114, 124–27
1:7–8 137
2:2 133
2:8 29, 287

1 Timothy
1:17 91
1:20 178
2:13 151
3:10 151
4:1–2 178, 191
6:17 3, 97
6:17–19 2, 89, 99–100, 306
6:19 98

2 Timothy
1:10 169
2:12 156
2:26 178, 191
4:8 138
4:18 91

Titus
2:12 3, 99–100, 306
2:12–13 97
2:13 138
Hebrews
1–2 156
1:3 156–57
1:8 92
1:13 156–57
1:13–14 157
2:1–4 157
2:5 157–58
2:5–8 157
2:7–8 157
2:8 156–57
2:14–15 191, 196–97, 203–5
5:6 92
6:2 113
6:5 3, 100, 306
6:20 92
7:2 151
7:17 92
7:21 92
7:24 92
7:27 151
7:28 92
8–10 218–20, 222–24
8:6–10:9 217
8:13 62–63, 218, 223
10:12–13 156, 158
10:13 157
11:19 113
11:26 66
11:35 114
12:9 150
12:18–24 23, 25
12:22 24
13:4 25
13:21 91

James
3:17 151
4:14 151

1 Peter
1:3 113
1:8 51, 53
1:10–11 126
1:25 92
3:18–20 78, 81
3:20 229, 239
3:21–22 156
3:22 157
4:6 235, 238
4:11 91
5:8 178, 190, 206
5:11 91

2 Peter
2:4 78, 81, 188
3 134–36, 253
3:1–18 136
3:3–4 134–35
3:3–7 253
3:3–13 135, 137
3:4 135
3:5–7 134
3:8 134, 245–46, 252–54
3:9 134–35
3:10–13 7, 15, 87, 107, 129–39
3:11–14 135, 138
3:12–14 138
3:13 35–36
3:14 136

1 John
2:11 191
2:17 92
2:18 111, 214
3:8 191, 197, 203–5
3:8–10 178
3:14 227
4:4 178
5:11–13 101, 227
5:19 178, 191

2 John
2 92

Jude
6 188
7 122
13 92

Revelation
1–3 274
1:1 257
1:3 297
1:5 220
1:6 92
1:10 250
1:13 250
1:18 92, 220, 234, 238
1:20 257
2:8 234, 238
2:10 178, 240, 247, 250
2:10–11 235, 240
2:13 234
2:26–27 284
3:1 234
3:10 187
3:21 156, 284
4–7 274
4:1 265
4:4 250
4:8 250
4:9 92
4:10 92
5:5 250
5:10 156, 239, 249, 273, 284
5:13 92
6–19 70, 73
6–22 73
6:9 240–41
6:9–11 235, 240–42
6:10 187, 241
6:10–11 241
6:11 241–42, 255
6:17 250
7 250
7:1 297
7:2 296, 298
7:3 237, 250
7:4–8 250
7:9 265, 277
7:12 92
7:13–17 277
7:15 250
7:17 234
8–11 274
8:1 250
8:9 229
8:12 250
8:13 187
9 187
9:1 184
9:1–2 184
9:1–6 186
9:1–10 279
9:2 184
9:3–13 178
9:5 250
9:6 250
9:7 286
9:9 286
9:10 250
9:11 184
9:13 188
9:15 250
10:1 296–97
10:6 92
10:7 250
10:10 257
10:11 298
11:2 250
11:2–3 281
11:3 250
11:3–13 298
11:6 250
11:7 184, 187, 286
11:8 257, 293
11:9 250
11:10 187
11:11 250
11:15 92, 249
11:34 258
12 203, 279–82
12–14 274, 298
12–19 268, 270
12–20 267–68
12:1 66
12:6 250, 281
12:7 279, 286
12:7–8 279
12:7–11 197, 205, 278–80, 282
12:7–12 197, 270
12:9 192, 267, 270, 279, 281
12:10 250, 279
12:11 229, 233, 279
12:12 255, 279, 281
12:12–13 187
12:14 281
13:1–10 267
13:2 195, 234
13:4 195
13:5 250
13:7 195, 286
13:7–8 277
13:8 187, 195
13:11–18 267
13:14 187, 192, 195, 234, 238, 240, 270, 281
13:15 241
13:15–17 277
14:8 293
14:10 122
14:11 92, 250
14:12–13 277
14:13 235, 240
14:14–16 65
15–16 274
15:1 283, 294–96
15:5 265
15:7 92
15:18 237
16 282–83, 285, 288, 298
16–18 133
16:3 229, 234, 267
16:8–9 137
16:10 234
16:12–16 274, 282–96
16:13–14 268, 277
16:13–16 270, 275
16:14 250, 281
16:15 137, 275
16:17–21 294
16:19 275
17–19 274
17–22 274, 298
17:1 293
17:1–19:6 298
17:2 187
17:5 293
17:8 184, 187
17:10 255
18 298
18:1 265, 293, 296–97
18:2 293
18:8 250
18:9 293
18:10 293
18:13 229
18:21 293
18:23 192, 270, 281
18:24 241
19 15, 73, 83, 262–65, 267–71, 273–75, 282–83, 285, 288, 297, 299 301
19:1 265
19:3 92
19:5 144
19:7–9 298
19:11 264–65, 297
19:11–16 298–99
19:11–18 73
19:11–19 270
19:11–20:10 268
19:11–21 120, 125–26, 215, 241, 263, 265–66, 274–76, 282–96, 298
19:11–21:8 266
19:14 210
19:15 29, 259
19:16 297
19:17 265
19:17–19 170, 276–77
19:17–21 277, 298–99
19:18 276
19:19 73, 81, 265, 276, 297
19:19–20 270, 275
19:19–21 73, 117, 277–78
19:20 66, 73, 123, 192, 234, 267, 270–72, 281
19:21 73, 276, 278
19–20 117, 120, 127, 220, 263–64, 267, 271–72, 283, 288–94
19–21 8, 75, 105, 127, 265, 303
19–22 264, 299
20 1, 4–16, 20, 34, 50, 73, 76–77, 83, 91–93, 95–96, 102, 110, 112, 114,
117, 121, 124, 132–34, 139, 141–43, 148–49, 154, 158, 162–63, 166,
170–71, 175–76, 178–81, 183–85, 187–89, 191–92, 197–207, 210–
11, 213, 215–16, 219–23, 226–30, 232, 236, 239, 242–48, 251–52,
254–56, 258, 260–70, 272–75, 279–83, 286, 297, 299, 301–3
20:1 259, 263–66, 274–75, 279, 297–98
20:1–3 73, 77, 175–206, 259–60, 265–67, 269, 274–76, 279, 282, 285, 298–
99
20:1–6 6–7, 15, 27, 72–73, 83, 127, 175, 215, 263–64, 266–68, 271–72, 274–
75, 278–82, 287, 289, 299
20:1–10 117, 120, 122, 125, 148–49, 268, 274, 298
20:1–15 214
20–22 274
20:2 230, 243, 251, 259, 279
20:2–3 279
20:3 237, 243, 251, 255, 259, 269–70, 275, 278–79, 281
20:4 156, 227, 243, 251, 264–65, 272, 277, 279
20:4–5 112–13, 156, 251, 273
20:4–6 77, 159, 170, 207–42, 249, 266–67, 273, 284, 298–99
20:5 117, 159–60, 227, 243, 251
20:5–6 110–11
20:6 73, 240, 243, 251, 272
20:7 73, 178, 182, 184, 187–89, 205, 243, 251
20:7–8 193, 195, 237, 268, 279
20:7–9 27, 138, 271–72, 278
20:7–10 73–74, 144, 170, 195, 203, 271, 274–75, 282–96, 298–99
20:7–11 274
20:7–15 73, 298
20:7–21:1 133
20:8 188, 195, 255, 275
20:9 239, 268
20:10 66, 92, 122–23, 202, 216, 250, 267–68, 270–72, 296
20:11 117–18, 137, 265
20:11–13 220
20:11–15 74, 76, 115–18, 120–126, 209, 220, 242, 267, 295–96, 298–99
20:12–13 118
20:12–15 117
20:13 159–60, 212
20:14 66, 79, 122, 148, 166
20:14–15 216
20:15 117–18, 120, 122, 220
21 15, 50, 121, 218–20, 222, 301
21–22 20, 74, 77, 83, 91, 93, 96, 262, 266, 299
21:1 35–36, 117–18, 137–39, 217, 222, 265
21:1–4 38, 42, 122, 139, 144–45, 162–63
21:1–22:5 298
21:3 234
21:4 34, 36, 148, 163, 166, 218
21:5 234
21:6 66
21:8 218
21:23 77
21:24 57
21:25 250
22 50, 66
22:1 156, 234
22:1–5 145
22:2 57, 250
22:3 34, 234
22:5 92, 156
22:15 66, 249
22:17 6