Well, it had to happen sooner or later, didn’t it? The Millennium! Are you pre, post, a, mid-trib., or simply ‘pre-posterous’? (And let’s not have anyone trying the old ‘pan-millenialist’ explanation: ‘Jesus is coming back and it all pans out all right in the end’).
I’d like to be a little more focused, and propose a view which avoids some of the problems associated with all of the views mentioned above - views which depend on major theological categories being introduced which are mentioned nowhere else apart from Revelation 20, and even there rest on the slenderest of foundations - six verses, with a coda in Revelation 20:7-10.
But first, to simplify things, there seem to be two main interpretations of these six verses (Revelation 20:1-6). First, that at some point in the future, Christ will return to earth and usher in a period of unprecedented peace known as ‘the millennium’. This is the pre-millennial position, otherwise known as ‘chiliasm’. It seems to have been popular with the church fathers, and enjoyed a renaissance in the 19th century, and more recently through the writings of George Eldon Ladd.
The second view, given weight by Augustine, reaffirmed by Calvin, which was the position of the reformers, is the ‘anti-chiliast’ view: that the millennium was inaugurated by Christ at his first advent, and continues through to a brief future resurgence of Satanic power (Revelation 20:7-10) before Satan’s final overthrow, and the end of history (20:11-15).
(A third view, post-millennialism is really a variation of a-millennialism, asserting an evolutionary path of progress for the church, until the kingdom is handed over by the triumphant saints to Christ after a future 1000 years of their rule over the earth).
Because each of these positions gives rise to major difficulties when set against the testimony of the rest of the New Testament, I would like to outline a different approach, which harmonises better with the rest of Revelation and the N.T., does not give rise to major new categories which have not been expressed elsewhere, gives a clear relevance to the experiences of the 1st century churches addressed by Revelation, and avoids theological and philosophical problems which arise when other positions are explored in detail.
The view I will present suggests that the key ideas of the 1000 years (20:2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7) and the "short time" (20:3) are metaphors, not of time, but of victory and opposition, which would have been of relevance to the questions of the Asian churches for whom Revelation had been written, especially in their circumstances of believing in a Jesus who, they had been assured, had defeated Satan, yet through their experience of persecution were continuing to experience fierce opposition.
For these 1st century churches, to have understood Revelation 20:1-10 as referring to events which would be fulfilled over 19 centuries after their time would have seemed bizarre and irrelevant in the extreme. So how does an alternative explanation, which avoids these difficulties work out?
1. The binding of Satan is strongly emphasised in Matthew 12:29 (Luke 11:21-22) as well as Revelation 20:2. Both passages speak of a releasing of those who were in Satan’s power. Revelation goes beyond Matthew and Luke in speaking of a release which extends to the nations - but this too may be suggested by the gospel accounts when the gentile missions and John 12:31 are considered.
2. The binding of rebellious angels is also mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. These verses have parallels with Revelation 20:1-3, with a similar binding with ‘chains’ and being held for judgement. In Revelation, Satan is bound with a great chain, thrown into the abyss, which is then sealed over him.
3. Colossians 2:15 speaks of a similar victory of Christ over spiritual powers, which evokes the image of a ‘triumph’, in which a Roman general dragged his defeated enemies in chains in procession through the streets of Rome. To this image can be added the thoughts expressed in Matthew 12:28 and Luke 10:18. All suggest that Revelation 20:1-3 can be viewed as a similar phenomenon.
4. W. Hendriksen (More than conquerors) points out that John 12:31 has similarities with Revelation 20:1-3, when in response to the request of certain Greeks to see him, Jesus replies that through his death (a) Satan is ‘driven out’, (b) he - Jesus - will draw all men to himself. Hendriksen’s point is that Jesus will make disciples of all nations through his worldwide mission, hence Satan is no longer able to deceive them - and is effectively ‘bound’, as in Revelation 20:1-3. Hendriksen emphasises the enormous difference between the position of the nations before and after Jesus’s coming; now his triumphal procession reaches them all (Colossians 1:6, 23; 2 Timothy 4:17). To expound Revelation 20:1-3 in terms of the death/resurrection, ascension/outpoured Spirit of Jesus is in harmony with the whole of the N.T.
G.C. Berkouwer (The Return of Christ, Chapter 10) suggests that the 1000 years does not represent time, but symbolises power - the defeat of Satan by Christ taught in the rest of the N.T. This explanation is in agreement with the motives underlying Revelation: to bring encouragement to churches which might othewise see themselves as beleaguered and defeated. All the wars in Revelation, which appear on the surface to involve massive organised conflict in their hostility to God and His people, frequently achieve little more than instantaneous extermination of God’s enemies by the Lord’s breath.
From this persective, the "short time" of Revelation 20:3 is not a literal period of future time. It is foreign to the thinking of the N.T. that a Satan who has been so comprehensively defeated by Christ could at some future point be undefeated, or unbound. But in view of the circumstances of the 1st century church, and the implications of the millennium as a symbol of Satan’s defeat, it is appropriate to interpret "short time" as a symbol of the limited danger Satan poses to the church. The suffering and martyrdom of the saints does not mean that Satan is on the loose. He has been bound, but nevertheless poses a limited threat still. He has nevertheless been defeated, and will never be the victor. Persecution is still a possibility within the limited space Satan and his powers have, until his final defeat when he is cast into the lake of fire. Even this limited threat he poses can serve to strengthen the faith of the church - James 1:2-4; 1 Peter 1:6-7 (note the same phrase - "a little while"); 4:12-13.
The "short time" of Revelation 20:3 should not cause the church to underestimate the nature of the conflict - but a continuing battle is not a losing battle. It is of a limited character.
This interpretation of Revelation 20 fits well with the rest of Revelation, in which Christ is consistently seen as the conqueror - and is a better interpetation than that Satan has yet to be bound or will one day become unbound. It agrees with Revelation 12, which is one of several overviews and recapitulations of history, and in which the threat of Satan to the church is countered by the protection of the church, in images of his impotent fury.
Like the rest of the N.T., Revelation presents Satan as furious but subjugated, a dangerous foe, but one whose danger is limited, repeatedly expediting the victory of the saints. Hendriksen highlights in particular that the binding of Satan is connected with the worldwide proclamation of the gospel.
Both premillennialiasm and amillennialism (chiliasm and anti-chiliasm) have the same fatal weakness in playing to the principle that by decoding Revelation we can write history in advance.
Berkouwer points out a number of chiliasm’s weaknesses. First, its double expectations - what he calls "the reduplication of fulfilment": a millennium and a new Jerusalem to follow; two consummations; two returns of Christ; two resurections (that of the righteous and the ungodly). Second, the pessimism of chiliasm - in which evil is presented as all-pervading, and to which Christ’s victory seems to have made no difference. It is dualistic - this world is written off; the best we can hope for is the world to come. Little room is left for the promise of victory in this life.
A further weakness of chiliasm is the abandonment of the spread of the kingdom in this life, and its consignment to the 1000 years to come (and even there, it leads to failure). This despite the promise of victory to the church in Matthew 16:18 - that the gates of hell will not overcome it/prevail against it.
Well, that’s it then. I have paraphrased much of this from Adrio Koenig’s The eclipse of Christ in eschatology, and anyone wishing to pursue these thoughts further could go to Koenig, or G.C. Berkouwer in The Return of Christ.
In the meantime - what do people think of this little known, but to me powerfully compelling interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10? And if you disagree, which viewpoint do you think best explains the data?
Re: Interpreting the 1000 years
In seminary we were asked to look at Revelation as a set of 7 sections. Hendrickson called it "progressive parallelism" in his More than Conquerors. That is, each section addresses the time between Christ’s first and second advent, progessing from earth to heaven (chs. 1-3; 4-7; 8-10; 11-13; 14-16; 17-19; 20-22; or something like that.)
In this view, section 6 ends with ch. 19 and ch.20 begins section 7. With that in mind, the return of Christ in ch. 19 is not related to the millenium of ch. 20, doing away with a pre-millenial possibility. Therefore, the millenium is now; an indeterminate amount of time between Christ’s first and second coming. Satan is bound in as much as the spread of the gospel to the nations cannot be stopped. Those who reign with Christ and over whom the second death has no power are those who have died for the sake of the gospel (see parallel in ch. 6). They reign in heaven now. That is the first resurrection.
Gil Baille, in the spirit of Rene Girard, says that the gospel is unveiling violence. In other words, the gospel exposes the futility of the scapegoating mechanism to ensure peace. As the false mechanism is exposed, a new way of peace must be found. In that way, we are in a battle between the compassion and forgiveness of the gospel and those who cling to violence. The Revelation seems to be saying that some will refuse to let go and resort to armageddon (perhaps as natural resources dry up?). This, to me, sounds like a good explanation for Satan’s "little while."
At this point (no can know for sure) "the throne" will be revealed, the devil cast into the pit and the dead will be raised to be judged based on their works (can you repent during the judgment?). I suppose I can try and explain it all further, but that’s the gist of it. I’m not sure how it varies with what has already been shared, but it is an a-millenialist view.
Re: Interpreting the 1000 years
Peter, I find myself agreeing with much of the spirit of this. However, the argument that the 1000 years symbolizes Christ’s victory over satan through his death and resurrection seems to me to neglect the historical and political dimension to the motif. I agree that the New Testament interprets Christ’s death in such terms, but this needs to be understood in relation to the larger conflict between the people of God and the massive political power that opposed YHWH and oppressed the people.
‘Satan’ is not the abstract evil power that he has become in Christian dualist metaphysics. Within the context of Jewish apocalypticism satan is the power behind the enemies of Israel. When Peter warns his readers that their ‘adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour’, he means the evil that manifests itself in persecution and the temptation to renounce Christ: ‘Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world’ (1 Peter 5:8-9).
In Revelation - and I would suggest in texts such as John 12:31 - satan is the inspiration behind the extreme hostility of Rome. Jesus’ death constitutes the decisive defeat of this evil, but it is a defeat in advance of, it anticipates, the ‘political’ defeat of Roman imperialism through the faithful witness of the persecuted church. Given the context of Rev. 20:1-3, I would argue that the 1000 years marks not the particular victory of the cross but the general victory of the church, which is called to conquer through suffering as Christ conquered (see the seven letters), over Rome and its satanic genius. This is the point at which judgment of the nations becomes concretely realized: the beast which opposed the church (not merely Jesus) is captured and imprisoned.
The suffering and martyrdom of the saints is not something that needs to be explained because satan was supposed to have been defeated on the cross. It is the means by which those in Christ, the collective ‘Son of man’, make that victory historically real.
Because this is not merely a metaphysical victory but a historical victory, I am more inclined to accept the temporal dimension of the 1000 year symbolism. I don’t really see how you can avoid it: the ending of persecution, the defeat of the imperial ideology, the collapse of Rome as a political force, all marked the beginning of a new age for the people of God. The spiritual victory over satan inevitably had temporal implications. Since the 1000 years is clearly a temporal metaphor, why not allow it to refer - admittedly in somewhat imprecise and symbolic terms - to the time beyond the victory? And how odd it is to find myself defending a literalist interpretation of Revelation!
I don’t see this as so problematic if we think in historical terms. What real difference is there between a resurgence of extreme satanic hostility at some point in the future and allowing that satan - to use your words - ‘poses a limited threat still’? I think we need to keep reminding ourselves that the New Testament uses apocalyptic or metaphysical or mythical language to speak about actual experience and historical expectation. Modern theology has detached the language from its proper frame of reference and tries to find systematic coherence in it (cf. all the interpretive schema applied to Revelation), which generally misses the point.
PastorPete’s Girardian reading in terms of violence, peace and the dwindling of natural resources may constitute a valid theological inference, but it is conceptually a long way from the apocalyptic-historical outlook of Revelation.
When did this period begin?
Andrew you wrote…
Exactly when did this new age begin? According to WIKIPEDIA the ‘fall of Rome’ occurred either in 476 or the 7th century.
Andrew I am revealing my ignorance of your total approach. I have this impression that you understand the 1st century, suffering church as the saints of Daniel 7 that participate in the first resurrection. I then understand you to be saying that 21st century followers of Jesus are part of the second resurrection. Since this is my impression, I am confused how you can understand the 1000 years to refer to the period after the demise of Rome because it happened historically much later. I know I have missed something.
Re: When did this period begin?
I wouldn’t try to put a date on when this 1000 year reign with Christ began. To this extent I would agree with Peter’s approach: the millennium functions as a symbol for the significance of the church’s victory over persecution and the ensuing period of freedom from absolute oppression, during which Christ is publicly acknowledged as Lord. Remember that this is prophecy, not pre-emptive historiography - John was not trying to write history before it had happened; he was constructing a symbolic narrative of hope for the church.
Yes, in my view, the first resurrection is the vindication of the suffering church, for which Daniel’s vision of the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven, as individual and as community, provided for the New Testament a central shaping motif. At what point in history this resurrection occurred I don’t think we can say, but in the forward-looking apocalyptic narrative it coincides with judgment on Rome and the satanic power which inspired the hostility towards YHWH and his people.
I don’t regard the fact that Rome fell much later as so significant: the same historical circumstances that the churches of Asia faced in the first century prevailed up until that point. In the Old Testament there is often a lag of hundreds of years between prophecy and its fulfilment (eg., Jeremiah’s prophecy of a ‘new covenant’ with Israel: Jer. 31:31-34). In any case, the fall of Rome was not a simple, single event. The imperial cult ended long before the collapse of Rome as a commercial and political power.
At the end of the 1000 years, as John sees it, there will be a final conflict, a final resurrection - a ‘second resurrection’ - of all the dead, and the inauguration of a new creation in which there is no more wickedness, suffering and death. Things get a little unclear here, but my assumption is that 21st century Christians like you and me will be judged at this time, before the throne of God, according to what we have done (Rev. 20:12) - pretty much like everyone else, it would seem. Those whose names are not written in the book of life will be destroyed.
Re: When did this period begin?
So, it seems we can agree that we are in the 1000 years. That it’s not a literal 1000 years. And, that the 1000 years is being played out on earth. And, that Christ will return to judge the dead based on their works.
We can also agree that the first resurrection was the vindication of those who had died at the hands of Rome for the sake of Christ. Do we all see the martyrs in heaven as in ch. 6? What else needs to be worked through? I guess, where are we still differing?
I imagine it has something to do with the authorship of the Revelation and when. I’ve never thought of it as anything other than very late and certainly not prior to 70 AD. However, this sounds like a new thread and I’m not ready to leave this one yet.
It is, I think, important to have something "pastoral" to say about these verses. As another thread makes clear, life after death is important to people. We ought to be able to give people something hopeful to hang on to. Again, another thread.
Re: When did this period begin?
Whether there is a return of Christ or ‘second coming’ at the end of the 1000 years has been discussed here. My view is that the Son of man terminology is inappropriate at this point.
I’m intrigued by the possibility that Revelation was written around the time of the Jewish War, but, as you say, that is another topic.
I agree about the pastoral question, but I also think it’s no bad thing to resist the extreme individualism of modern spirituality. By reframing the final hope in terms of the renewal of creation we offset that individualism without removing the personal hope altogether, and allow other themes to become important - such as the renewal of social relations and the natural environment.
Re: When did this period begin?
Andrew mistakes me. The interpretation I am offering of the 1000 years is not, primarily, the church’s victory, but Christ’s victory. This raises an interesting phenomenon concerning the primary focus of various interpretive schemes.
In Andrew’s interpretive scheme, the shaping motifs are the victory through suffering of the persecuted saints, and judgement on Rome. Important as these motifs are, they are less important, to my mind, than the shaping motifs of the death/resurrection and ascension/outpoured Spirit of Christ. The former points to the narrative of the people of God, and invites us to join it. The latter points to Christ himself - dealing with a much bigger problem, which was the consistent cause of Israel’s failure and defeat, and points back to the failure of mankind since Adam.
I don’t wish to polarise the debate, but a narrative which is shaped by a victory in judgement through suffering is not, to my mind, the key shaping narrative which the world is needing. The narrative needed by the world is the narrative of Christ’s victory over sin and death on the cross, his reign as the king of life, and his impartation of that life to the people of God through the Holy Spirit.
There is some missionary significance in the former narrative, but infinitely more in the latter.
So back to the millennium. If we take the a-millennial interpretation, even with a very flexible symbolism, the 1000 years is surely long past by now. And the prospect of a future resurgence of satanic activity, leading to a helpless church beleaguered by satanic forces, is (a) totally irrelevant to the churches which were experiencing satanic hostility in the 1st century, (b) fuels an inherently pessimistic view of the future of the world, which is shared with pre-millennialism, and (c) encourages a retreat into our spiritual ghettoes.
On the other hand, the view that I am proposing brings the focus back to where it needs to be: the victory of Christ on the cross over Satan for all mankind. Take another look. This class will remain behind until it comes up with better and more convincing interpretations than it has exhibited through its work so far.
P.S. Satan was an opponent of God before he was an opponent of Israel. (I take it that he was an opponent of God, as in ‘Job’, before he became specifically hostile to Israel).
P.P.S. Kenneth L.Gentry has reshaped the debate on the date of Revelation in his seminal ‘Before Jerusalem fell: Dating the book of Revelation: An exegetical and historical argument for a pre-AD 70 composition (1989). The importance of this contribution to the dating of Revelation is accepted by ‘preterists’ and ‘non-preterists’ alike.
Another Try
Using Peter’s idea that the time periods are not referring to time but to metaphors for power I want to suggest another way of reading this passage. I would say though that they do refer to periods of history but the emphasis is power not time. Jesus’ power is a thousand times more powerful than Satan’s.
In order to present my case, I need to spell out my understanding of the 1st century mission. I begin with Paul’s mission to the Gentile world. Paul as a Jew believed that the world was divided into 70 nations (see James Scott’s book "Paul and the Nations" Book review at rbl http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=2577&CodePage=2779,4620,2577. He believed that he was called to bring the message of the reigning Jesus to those nations. He believed it had occurred.
Second, we can not downplay Jesus’ prophetic announcement that Israel would be punished by God through Rome. Jesus’ status as a true prophet from God hinged on that claim coming to pass. Paul was aware of this prediction I think in light of the fact that he could say that rebellious Israel was destined for wrath (Rom. 9). But Paul knew that God was waiting patiently until the "full number of Gentiles" (i.e. "all the nations in the table of nations Gen. 11) had responded to the Gospel. Only then could the judgment come to Israel and pave the way for "all Israel" to be saved. If God had not prolonged judgment on Israel, the gospel would not have spread to the Nations. The disobedience of Israel and the long-suffering of God were both needed for the Gospel to spread.
The ‘1000 years’ represents the period up to 70 AD when the Gospel triumphed over Rome and Jewish resistance. The Gospel had spread to all nations. Satan was not able to prevent the spread. The outbreak of violence against Israel in the late 60’s represents the unbinding of the evil one. We must remember that the text doesn’t say Jesus stops ruling.
This means that we are in the period of time when Satan is trying to deceive the Nations again. However, using Peter’s power metaphor, we realize that Satan’s power is nothing compared to Jesus’.
The relevance for our 2nd century brothers and sisters is that, since they found themselves post-70 AD, they read this vision to remind themselves that Jesus reigns and that their suffering is but a blip on the screen.
For us this means that we followers of Jesus are still in conflict with the powers BUT we know the power is limited.
Re: Another Try
Yes, nice try Christopher. And as always in these discussions, the spin-offs are as valuable as the discussion: like the book you draw attention to.
That Israel’s disobedience was instrumental in bringing salvation to the gentiles works for me not so much because the one led to the other, as it were, chronologically, but that Israel’s disobedience was at the heart of the issue which brought down salvation for the gentiles. Israel were God’s elect means of dealing with sin; their disobedience brought the obedient Israelite, Christ, to the cross, where sins were dealt with - for Jews and Gentiles.
But how does this inclusion of the ‘full number’ of the gentiles pave the way for ‘all Israel’ to be saved? Especially as Paul in Romans 11:26 is describing a simultaneous process (gentiles included, Israel hardened - but some saved) rather than a consecutive process (gentiles included - and then ‘all Israel’ saved).
Your interpretation also means that the ‘short time’ of Satan’s resurgence is actually longer (in real time) than the ‘thousand years’ in which he is bound. (2000+ years as against 65+ years). But it points up one thing: there is no simple interpretation of this passage which is without its difficulties.
Re: When did this period begin?
I was thinking that we don’t need to consider it a future resurgence as if the surge has stopped for the time being. In my mind the 1000 years is 10 to the 3rd power, two very important numbers in the Jewish system, signifying completion to the third degree. That’s very complete and leaves the symbolism open ended.
It seems to me the the church today is sharing the same struggle that the church of the first century shared. I don’t deny that the words were written specifically to them, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t without relevance to us. I don’t think you’re saying that. As people on whom God’s Spirit has been poured out, we too are in a struggle against the powers & principalities. Is this a pessimistic view? I think it is a realistic one. One that may or may not culminate in a greater struggle over which Christ will enter in.
This view doesn’t have us retreating, but rather living as a sign, instrument and foretaste of God’s kingdom that some might be saved. Saved, I would say, from themselves and their pursuit of life through violence to which God has given them up (Rom 1:24ff). The thousand years, then, is the church participating in Christ’s victory. A victory without which the church would not have begun. Likewise, while we can’t save the world, we can remain faithful until Christ’s return.
Then I again, I may be missing the point.
Re: When did this period begin?
Thanks, PastorPete. I don’t think you are missing the point - at least, your views seem similar to mine, so you can’t be missing the point!
However, I don’t think I would take it as pessimistic because we are involved in struggle against ‘the powers’; rather, I would take it as pessimistic if we were led to believe we would not prevail against ‘the powers’ on this earth, this side of ‘new heaven and new earth’.
I would also especially take it as pessimistic if all we could look forward to was a future, at some distant stage, when despite the promises that the ‘church’ would ‘prevail’ against ‘the gates of hell’, the final image is of Jerusalem (the new one, I suppose) being besieged by an overwhelming force of opponents, and only being rescued by fire from heaven. This would lead me to ask, why bother with anything now? And it would reinforce a view of the church’s mission as sending out lifeboats to rescue people out of the world, rather than bringing salvation into the world, to change the very nature of life in the world.
Re: When did this period begin?
I’m left all on my own with no one to talk to this evening, so I might as well reply to this.
Peter, I don’t think I mistook you. That was my point when I said, ‘I agree that the New Testament interprets Christ’s death in such terms, but this needs to be understood in relation to the larger conflict between the people of God and the massive political power that opposed YHWH and oppressed the people.’ I accept that we see this differently.
This is beside the point. The question we face in reading Revelation is not what the world needs but what John had in mind when he wrote. He was not writing a ‘missionary’ text for the post-eschatological church - he was writing to encourage churches that currently faced persecution. His argument was that through their faithful suffering they would overcome the enemy, the oppressor, just as the Son of man had done, and would come to reign with Christ for a thousand years - the point is made explicitly in Rev. 20:4. The millennium is about their victory.
What about Psalm 90:4: ‘For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as, a watch in the night’? Or 2 Peter 3:7-8:
If the 1000 years can symbolize something which is non-temporal (the victory of Christ), why shouldn’t it symbolize in rather indefinite terms the ‘age to come’? I don’t see that that stretches the symbolism very far at all.
I sort of agree with (a), but it’s really only a minor event in the run up to the judgment of all the dead. My guess is that a final conflict with satan is needed in order to justify his destruction. (b) is irrelevant - if John wants to believe in a final war against the saints, why should your optimism stop him? (c) does not necessarily follow. I would read it more positively: only at the end of all things - and not before - will the church encounter the sort of satanic opposition that manifested itself and threatened the existence of the whole church during the first centuries. There is no need for us to hide away in our spiritual ghettoes: on the contrary, the 1000 years in which satan is bound gives us plenty of time to get on with the work of being the people of God in the world.
According to your non-temporal reading, what is the point of this release of satan, the gathering for war, and his final destruction? If it is non-temporal how can satan be at the same time imprisoned, released from prison, and destroyed?
Fair enough, but I was talking about the outlook of Jewish apocalypticism.
Thanks for giving me (and, I see, others) so much to think about.
Re: When did this period begin?
Thanks Andrew for a stimulating reply - even if it was only to pass the time because you had nothing else to do tonight!
I agree with you that a major theme of Revelation is that through faithful suffering, the churches facing persecution would overcome their oppressor (just as Christ had overcome through faithful suffering).
You were right to pick me up on my use of language - but actually, my understanding of Revelation is that the focus is very much on the Christ who overcame. But I’m not wanting to set one thing against another - to set the people of God narrative against the Christ narrative. All I’m doing is suggesting that the one takes priority over the other - even in Revelation. (I would say especially in Revelation).
So I do keep to my position - that the shaping motifs of Christ in the story are the missionary story - and that the people of God in the story are shaped in every way by Christ’s own story. It’s that way round - not the other.
On a metaphorical level, it is possible to locate the victory of Christ in the judgements on the nations that oppose the people of God, as a past historical event, as much as in the cross of Christ. At least, that’s what I have noticed in these discussions. The metaphor of victory seems to be transferrable. But maybe it’s also indivisible. We just seem to disagree (continuously!) on what constitutes the central core of that victory - and what it means.
And in the end, we can’t evade the question about what constitutes the story of mission to the world. The story, to me, of Revelation only becomes a story because of Christ first and foremost. I’m quite sure that is what John (who I take to be the same John of the gospel, and the John of the gospel to be John the brother of James), had in mind in Revelation - that the pride of place would go to Christ in the story, not the suffering church in itself.
I suppose that’s why I’m questioning all the ‘end-time’ scenarios in which pride of place seems to slip away from Christ and to be taken by something else: the people of God, the antichrist, the programme for the last days. the power of satan, etc etc. But that sort of thing really kicks in with a vengeance in full-blown premillennial scenarios. So I hope that provocative comment will lead someone out there to respond….
Re: Interpreting the 1000 years
"I am more inclined to accept the temporal dimension of the 1000 year symbolism. I don’t really see how you can avoid it: the ending of persecution, the defeat of the imperial ideology, the collapse of Rome as a political force, all marked the beginning of a new age for the people of God."
Question: In as much as Christians are still persecuted (China & Africa), imperial ideology still exists (USA), and political forces battle against the compassion and forgiveness of God (everywhere), can we really say that a new age as begun? It seems that Satan has been bound but not defeated. Through Christ, the nations can no longer be deceived, God’s ways have become clear. So, yes a new age has begun. But, as above, not all of the manifestations of satan have gone away. In fact, there seem to be some new ones (consumerism, individualism, etc.). So, no a new age has not yet begun.
Many explain this as the "already, not yet" of eternal life. In Christ, we have already been ushered into God’s kingdom, but it is not yet complete. In other words, Satan is bound, but not dead.
Re: Interpreting the 1000 years
I’m a little late getting in on this, but if anyone is still reading…
I think you are missing the entire point of prophetic writings. You are reading revelation and other prophetic stories in the bible as if the people were predicting a future that is set in stone.
Prophets tell of possible future events based on what they would like to see happen. Their purpose is to create excitement and motivation to help create a particular future. The writer of revelation tells us a future of God overthrowing the evil (Roman) empire and returning God’s people to power because that is what he hopes will one day happen. The future cannot be predicted because it hasn’t happened yet.
The "kingdom of God" is Jesus view of what he wishes to happen in the future. It is Jesus’ "I have a dream" speech. The actual events of the future are still to be determined. As Christians we should seek to follow these prophetic instructions and attempt to bring them into reality. If we had no chance to change the future then Jesus would not have needed to train and deploy his followers.
Good prophets generate enough of a buzz that the events they speak about actually do happen. Having faith in biblical prophecies doesn’t mean believing that God will force a particular future, but it means becoming motivated to do your part in ensuring that it really does happen that way.