Chapter 20:1-10

These first ten verses of this twentieth chapter are perhaps the most controversial in all the bible, and there is an incredibly wide range of interpretations of them. Unfortunately, some make the mistake of making a particular interpretation the basis upon which the rest of the bible is understood, leading to some pretty unusual doctrines that contradict clear scripture statements. In fact, there has been a whole host of books and even some popular movies promoting what can be referred to as pop eschatology, an understanding of Last Things which is superficial, shallow, and potentially even spiritually dangerous, based more on theory and conjecture than on actual biblical statements.

It is always a good idea to let clear statements guide the understanding of unclear ones, not the other way around. In this way, scripture becomes its own best interpreter, and speculation over the meaning of figurative passages can be kept to a minimum.

Many of the images in this section can indeed have light shed on them by other passages, but unfortunately the most controversial one, the '1000 years,' cannot, because no other passage ever refers to it. However, even though this section is shrouded in highly figurative language, it is possible to understand something about it within the context in which it is found. The reason why is because when a section is figurative, employing many metaphors, all the metaphors will relate to each other within its context. An example is the description of the Roman Empire in chapters seventeen and eighteen. All the images were related to each other, and thus fit to form a total picture. It would have been inconsistent to have a reference to a president in the middle of it all that would have nothing to do with any of it.

When part of a passage is figurative, it is generally best to consider all of it that way. Otherwise, you have the problem of deciding which part is figurative and which is not, and those decisions would be purely speculative. Again, it is best to try to figure out how the original readers would understand this section, reading it naturally, not necessarily literally. Perhaps the best way to reach an understanding here is to just read the first ten verses and then ask the right questions, the answers to which will reveal what we seek to know.

But before we do that, let's look at the flowchart again. Notice that the Ch20:1-10 box is a long one, beginning at the same place that the Ch12-14 box and the sixth seal in the Ch6 box begin. Notice that the v1-6 subbox is set apart directly underneath the sixth seal of the Ch6 box. Also notice that at the other end of this box the v7-10 subbox is also set apart, underneath the Ch 19:11-21 subbox, and the 7 and 3 in the boxes above.

We already determined that the sixth seal in chapter six and the twelfth chapter both deal with the gospel, so the flowchart indicates that Ch 20:1-6 also deals with that. And, since the 3rd angel, the seventh bowl of wrath, and the last eleven verses of chapter nineteen all deal with Armageddon, the flowchart indicates that Ch 20:7-10 also deals with that.

Now notice the wide gap between the subboxes. This shows that the two scenes portrayed here happen far apart from each other, time-wise, one being the gospel and the other Armageddon. This gives you an idea what this portion of scripture is about. Now, let's get down to specifics and ask of the text some key questions:

ANSWER ONE: John 16:11 says that Satan stands condemned, while Colossians 2:15 says that Satan and his allies were disarmed and beaten "by the cross." Hebrews 2:14 states that Jesus' death destroyed him who had the power over death, that is, the devil, while 1 John 3:8 states that destroying the devil's work was the reason Jesus came to this earth. Finally, Revelation 12:10-12 shows Satan defeated and hurled down, again because of the cross, though the rest of the chapter shows Satan very much active. The binding of Satan, then, means a limitation of his power. He no longer has unlimited free reign over the earth.

ANSWER TWO: No. Even some thirty years later Peter could state that we had to be careful because Satan was on the prowl, looking for someone to devour in 1 Peter 5:8. Yet in the very next verse Peter says to resist him, strongly implying that that can be done. And James 4:7 adds that if you do resist him he will flee from you. And Paul adds in 1 Corinthians 10:13 that Satan cannot tempt anyone beyond his/her ability to endure. So what do we have here? Simply this, that Satan is only free within certain limits. He can still tempt you, but not beyond your ability to resist. This is also indicated by the fact that Satan was still quite active after he was hurled down and defeated in Revelation 12:10-12. And all we have to do is look around us to see ample evidence of Satan's influence. It is everywhere.

This is hard for some to grasp. They reason that Satan is either bound or he is not bound, period. But one way to look at it is this — a prisoner, bound up in prison, is still free to do certain things while he is there. He might use the recreation room or the prison library. So he has those freedoms at his disposal, but he cannot leave the prison. He can be said, therefore, to be free within certain limits, even though he is bound in prison. Or take yourself as an example. You are free to drive down the freeway, but not at 100 MPH! This is freedom within certain limits to which you are bound. Satan cannot tempt you beyond your ability to endure, like he once could. That's why if we succumb it is our own fault. But he can still tempt us.

QUESTION THREE: When did this occur? This is an important question, since many think that Satan as yet has not been bound, and so are looking to the future for this to happen.

ANSWER THREE: Since Answer One established that Satan has indeed been bound, and Answer Two shows to what extent, then we must look to history to find out when it happened. Interestingly enough, all five passages listed in Answer One also tell us when this occurred: In John 16:11 Jesus said, "...the prince of this world now stands condemned." Now, at the time Jesus said it. Colossians 2:15 states that Jesus triumphed "...by the cross." Hebrews 2:14 says that Jesus destroyed him who had the power of death "...by His death." 1 John 3:8 says that is the reason Jesus appeared. Finally, Revelation 12:10-12 says that Satan has been hurled down, because Jesus' saints "overcame him by the blood of the Lamb." So, clearly, Satan was bound at the cross, almost 2000 years ago.

QUESTION FOUR: If the 1000 years, or Millennium, begins with the binding of Satan, as 20:2 says, then when did the 1000 years begin?

ANSWER FOUR: The 1000 years, or Millennium, began at the cross, since that's when Satan was bound. To keep the metaphor consistent, then, the chain would be the gospel as defined by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8.

QUESTION FIVE: When is Satan to be released, to be ultimately defeated at Armageddon?

ANSWER FIVE: According to 20:7-10, this will happen when the 1000 years are over. This is perhaps the most critical point to make, since premillennialists teach that the 1000 years, or Millennium, will happen after Armageddon. Yet right here in chapter 20 we see the 1000 years beginning at v2, ending at v7, and Armageddon described at v7-10. That sequence of events is unmistakable. Armageddon follows, not precedes, the 1000 years (Millennium.)

It should also be pointed out that the other tenets of that theory, such as the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth from Jerusalem, the rapture, and the restoration of the Jews, etc., are all absent from this and all other biblical texts, and so are unfounded speculations. In fact, 1 Thessalonians 4:17 states that at the second coming of Christ we will meet Him in the air, and then ascend with Him. He will never set foot on this earth again! According to 2 Peter 3:10, the earth will be melted by fire at that time, anyway, so there wouldn't be any earth to stand on. The rapture is pure speculation (as will be shown in Answer Six,) being totally unmentioned in scripture, while theories of the restoration of the Jews always stem from Old Testament passages that have already been fulfilled, as Joshua 21:43-45; 23:13-14, 2 Chronicles 36:20-33 and Ezra 1:1-4 show. In fact, the root cause of virtually all of premillennialism's errors is the mistake of thinking that many of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel and Christ haven't all been fulfilled. But a close examination of the New Testament shows that to be incorrect. The apostolic witness quotes numerous examples of them and always uses them to prove the gospel. All references are always past tense, meaning their current arguments are their fulfillment. There are far too many to list here, but a sampling will do to prove the point. The following Old Testament verses are considered by premillennialists to be as yet unfulfilled, while the corresponding New Testament verses will show that they have been fulfilled:

Genesis 15:18, fulfilled by Joshua 21:43. I know this last one shows an Old Testament prophecy fulfilled in the Old Testament, but it is included because so many do not realize that it has been fulfilled, and are looking to the future for that to happen.

If we let the New Testament interpret the Old Testament by seeing how the New quotes and applies the Old, we end up with a divine commentary on what the Old means which is infinitely more reliable than what modern interpreters may say.

Sometimes it is claimed that the land promise wasn't fully fulfilled, since Israel never got the land up to the Euphrates River (it is said) as promised. Genesis 15:18 says that the land promised to Abraham would go all the way to the Euphrates. So the question is, was this promise ever fulfilled?

This is what Joshua 21:43-45 says: "So the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. The LORD gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the LORD handed all their enemies over to them. Not one of all the LORD'S promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled." You may object that Joshua didn't mention the Euphrates, but he did say all, which would have to include that. But, just for the sake of argument, let's say the objection stands. Is there any passage that indicates that Israel did possess the land right up to the Euphrates?

Let's read what 2 Samuel 8:3 has to say: "Moreover, David fought Hadadezer son of Rehob, king of Zobah, when he went to restore his control along the Euphrates River." He went to restore his control, which can only mean that he had it once in the past but lost it. You cannot restore what you never had, and so this verse proves that the Israelites had the land to the Euphrates, just as God promised and Joshua and Samuel verified, regardless of some premillennialists' comments to the contrary.

ANSWER SIX: The doctrine of the 'rapture' presents some interesting problems in interpretation. This doctrine is sometimes based on Luke 17:20-37 and Matthew 24:1-34. It is generally understood by some premillennialists to refer to the rapture, and it is believed that the ones taken away in Luke 17:34-36 are the ones taken by Jesus into heaven at that time. I've seen bumper stickers on cars that read, CAUTION: IN CASE OF RAPTURE THIS CAR WILL BE EMPTY!

But the foundational text for the doctrine of the rapture is 1 Thessalonians 4:17, the one verse that speaks of us being "caught up." But you might be surprised to see why it is called the rapture.

That word is not found in scripture, either in any English translation or even in the original Greek! Rather, that word is a transliteration of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, a Latin translation of this verse, dating from 405 A.D. The original Greek word translated as "caught up" is harpazo, which means "to seize, claim for one’s self eagerly, or snatch away." When Jerome produced his Latin version, the Latin word rapturus accurately translated the Greek harpazo.

But about 150 years ago a concept of the rapture was developed, using that transliteration not from the Greek, like baptism is of baptizo, but from the Latin, specifically, the Latin Vulgate, which dates at least 300 years after the time of the apostles. Then the concept of the rapture developed into a full-blown doctrine that actually contradicts scripture.

Of course, the obvious response to the above is to say that the word ‘trinity’ cannot be found in scripture, either, but that it is obviously taught there. That is true, but that has no bearing on whether or not that is true in this case, or even in any other case. The fact is, the idea of the trinity is supported throughout the bible, while the concept of the rapture is not. In fact, that concept contradicts the verses that are supposed by most to teach it. We will try to amply demonstrate that fact throughout the remainder of this Answer Six.

So looking at the three main passages, Luke 17:20-37, Matthew 24:1-34, and 1 Thessalonians 4:17, the real question is, what do they really teach?

Matthew 24:1-34 clearly answers the question concerning when the temple would be destroyed (see fuller notes on Matthew 24 in the text for the Ch 22:7-21 box,) and so Luke 17:20-37 also refers to that time frame. In that case, the one taken away would be the one captured by the Romans and carted off to Rome as a slave, something the Jews could relate to, remembering the 400 years in slavery to the Egyptians, as well as the 70 years they were captives to the Babylonians in Babylon. And according to the first-century historian and eye-witness Josephus (War, VI, 420) 97,000 were captured during the course of the Jewish War. Compare Luke 17:37 with Matthew 24:28 and you will see that what is normally considered a good thing, the 'rapture,' is really a frightening thing in the relatively near future, about another 36 years at that time, of those in Jerusalem. Those not taken (as slaves) are left behind probably because they are dead, having been killed during the destruction of not only the temple, but all of Jerusalem in 70 AD by Titus' army from Rome. Again, Josephus reports 1,100,000 killed during the course of the entire Jewish War, with another 97,000 sold into slavery. All this was also foretold in Luke 21:24. The temple was destroyed, and the nation was no more, the worst thing that could have happened to them as a nation, as foretold by Jesus in Matthew 24:21.

There are those who believe that v19-21 describe the 'great tribulation' and place it in our future. Now, if that were true and if the saints are to be raptured away before this happens, then what difference would it make if it happened in winter or on the Sabbath? It wouldn't matter at all. But this passage isn't about that, it's about the impending siege and destruction of Jerusalem. During that event flight out of the city during winter would be harsh on pregnant women and mothers with young children.

If this happened on the Sabbath the city gates would be closed, making escape that much harder. So these are the things Jesus has in mind in v19-21, while v17-18 point to its quickness and urgency. Time would definitely be of the essence!

Some scholars indicate that the initial siege of Jerusalem began on a Tuesday in October, so neither of the above fears concerning winter or the Sabbath materialized. An example of prayer being answered? Could be.

Luke 21:23-24 further confirms who the intended sufferers are (Jews,) and that it is in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. V24 is particularly telling.

So neither option, being taken away or being left behind, is good. This no-win situation Jesus is talking about can only be avoided by not being in Jerusalem when it is destroyed, so Jesus is saying GET OUT when you see the signs of it coming, otherwise this is what you can expect.

Apparently the original readers understood that, because when they saw the signs of it, Matthew 24:15-25, they left. History indicates that when perhaps several thousand died in Jerusalem during its destruction not one Christian was there to die, according to Matthew Henry's Commentary, vol. 5, on Matthew 24:18.

You may object that the imagery in v26-31 doesn't fit the destruction of Jerusalem, but this is not the first time this type of imagery has been used for temporal judgments against cities and nations. Isaiah 17 against Moab, Isaiah 18 against Cush, and Isaiah 19 against Egypt all use this same type of language to foretell their destruction. And so it is entirely within the scope of apocalyptic imagery to use this kind of language in regard to cities and nations.

Some who believe the premillennial theory concede that Luke 17:20-37 and Matthew 24:1-34 are not about the rapture. Instead, they insist they are about the second coming of Christ. Again, the explanations above show that they can only be about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

There are those who claim that the rejection of Jesus by the Jews during His first advent stopped a so-called prophetic clock, so to speak. This apparently wasn't supposed to happen and was unexpected. This prophetic clock won't be restarted until Jesus returns and miraculously causes everyone, Jews included, to accept and acknowledge Him as both Lord and Christ, ushering in the millennium, so the theory goes. But what does scripture have to say about all this?

In Acts 13 we find a sermon of Paul's that happens to address some of these issues. Beginning at verse 16 Paul briefly recounts Jewish history, and in verse 27 he states that the Jewish rejection of Jesus actually fulfilled scripture, as he put it, "...they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath." He then continues to show that Jesus' death, burial and resurrection all fulfilled scripture, and he proves it by quoting from them extensively in verses 32 through 41, including Psalm 2:7, Isaiah 55:3, Psalm 16:10, and Habakkuk 1:5. Later, while in Thessalonica, the author Luke reports in Acts 17:2,3 that "...on three Sabbath days he (Paul) reasoned from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead." Peter makes a similar point in Acts 2:23.

The whole idea of Jesus' rejection and subsequent death being a mistake actually denies the Gospel. As we pointed out in our discussion of the red dragon in the Ch 12-14 file, if Jesus had been kept from the cross we would all still be in our sins. And Jesus Himself said in John 12:27 that it was for this very reason (meaning His sacrificial death) that He came to this hour. Peter also makes that very clear in 1 Peter 1:19, when he writes that it was by "the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect," that we were redeemed. And in the very next verse he points out that Jesus was chosen for this "before the creation of the world." So it is clear that nothing that happened was a mistake, or unexpected. In fact it all fulfilled scripture, so the idea of a prophetic clock being stopped is just an unfounded theory that doesn't square with what the scriptures clearly teach.

The New Testament writers often refer to Old Testament prophecies to support what they're saying. One Old Testament passage is considered by many today to be a prophecy of the rapture, and that is Zechariah 14. But I find it interesting that none of the New Testament passages described above that are supposed by some to describe the rapture ever appeal to Zechariah 14 for support. Could it be that Zechariah 14 isn't about the rapture at all?

A close comparison of Zechariah 14 with Matthew 24:1-34 will show many parallels. It is my opinion that the overwhelming evidence supports the fact that both passages are discussing the same event, that being the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and so yet another passage supposed by some to support the doctrine of the rapture fails to do so.

There is just no evidence at all to support the idea that Jesus is coming twice, first at the rapture and second a thousand years later at the second coming (which would actually be His third coming!) Scripture never says that He will reign from Jerusalem again. Interestingly enough, If Jesus was to reign from David's throne in Jerusalem He would have to do that against the word of Jeremiah! In Jeremiah 22:28-30 he writes that Jehoiachin (that is, Jeconiah, or Coniah for short) is to be removed from David's throne, and that "none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David." Jesus is in that line, Matthew 1:11,12, and so Jeremiah is saying that it is illegal for Jesus to rule from David's earthly throne!

But we should remember that the Old Testament types and shadows were replaced by the New Testament anti-types and substances. If Jesus is reigning now, as 1 Corinthians 15:25 indicates, and yet is in heaven now, as many passages indicate, it follows that the anti-type of David's throne is in heaven, where Jesus sits and reigns.

But it is argued by premillennialists that there are two judgments; One, the judgment seat of Christ, for the saved, and Two, the Great White Throne judgment, for the lost, and that they happen 1000 years apart. What does the bible say?

2 Corinthians 5:10 mentions the judgment seat of Christ, where it is plainly referencing the final judgment of both the saved and the lost, (all will appear.) Otherwise there is no point in including v11.

But notice Romans 14:10 "...For we will all stand before God's judgment seat." God's judgment seat is evidently Christ's judgment seat. In fact, the KJV uses the term 'judgment seat of Christ' here. These are the only two verses that mention a judgment seat of Christ or God, and both use the Greek word bema, used for a legal tribune. The term bema seat, as some like to call it, is used a number of times in the New Testament, notably Matthew 27:19, John 19:13, and Acts 18:12,16,17; 25:10,17, and in every case it is translated either as a judgment seat or a court, as in a court of law.

The Textus Receptus, on which the KJV is based, has bema christos in both verses, and the KJV translates both as "the judgment seat of Christ." The Nestle text, on which the NIV is based, on the other hand, has bema theos in Romans 14:10, and so the NIV translates that as "God's judgment seat." But the point is that both say we all will be there. Therefore, there is only one judgment seat, called by two names, as there is only one judgment (with two verdicts.) And it all harmonizes perfectly with the Great White Throne judgment we read about In Revelation 20:11-15 and on into chapter 21 as the saved are described. Even though the word bema is not used in Revelation 20:11 this is clearly the judgment all must attend. But there is more:

John 5:28-29 (KJV, italics mine): "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

First, Jesus says this all happens in one hour. Premillennialists say it happens 1000 years apart. Second, Jesus says all the dead hear His voice, not just one or the other. Lastly, they all go to the judgment together, some going on to eternal life, others to condemnation, and it all happens in one hour. There is no room for 1000 years here. And Paul makes essentially the same point before Felix in Acts 24:15 when he said, "and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked." Note that Paul said resurrection (singular) of both the righteous and the wicked. So clearly both are in the same resurrection even though the end result is very different.

It seems to me that the discussion Paul has in 2 Thessalonians about the coming of the Lord begins at 1:5 and continues on through 2:12. 1:5 through v12 gives a general overview, while 2:1 through v12 gives more specific details concerning that coming. Paul opens 2:1 by saying "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to Him..." (which he just discussed somewhat in 1:5-12,) and then proceeds to further expound upon that in 2:1-12.

But let's focus on 1:5-10 a minute. The same subject is at hand here, and I want to draw your attention to a few things:

The question is, when does this happen? The answer is in the rest of v7 "...This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven..." So both things happen at the same time, on the same day, when Jesus is revealed.

I submit to you that the above says that when Jesus comes (the 2nd coming) the lost are punished and the saved are relieved on the same day. There is no mention of a rapture here, nor is there any room for 1000 years between these events that are specifically stated to happen on the same day. 2:1-12 further expounds on this theme, but all events still happen "on the day He comes..." 1:10. Add 1 Corinthians 15:20-25 to this and the premillennial tribulation/rapture theory must fall. It cannot stand the light of scripture.

V8, "In blazing fire..." recalls 2 Peter 3:10, which says that when He comes the earth will be destroyed by fire. This is yet further evidence that there will be no earth left standing when Jesus comes from which to rule, let alone Jerusalem or Solomon's temple.

This brings up another interesting subject, that being Ezekiel's Temple. This is perhaps's Ezekiel's most famous vision, found in chapters 40-48 of his book. It is argued that this temple has never been built, and therefore its fulfillment is still future, which then means that Israel has a future as well. But is this the case?

As with virtually all visions, it is a mistake to understand this one literally, but there are some clues we can take from it. First, this visional temple is based on the Mosaic tabernacle rather than the Solomonic temple. By reverting to Moses from Solomon the idea of a Jewish national restoration is sidestepped. Secondly, Hebrews 8:2 and 9:11 both refer to a temple built not by human hands but by God. And so the relationship of type to anti-type continues, with Ezekiel's temple being a type of the church that the Hebrew writer holds up as superior to Judaism, as all of Hebrews eight and nine, in fact that entire book, makes clear. And so Ezekiel's vision has nothing to do with an earthly temple.

Take a look at 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. The subject here is what happens to the saved. It happens on the same day, not 1000 years earlier, as noted by 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10. Everything here happens "on the day he comes", v10.

So the judgment seat of Christ and the Great White Throne judgment are really just two aspects of the same judgment. All the dead rise at the same time, not the just 1000 years before the unjust, and all face the judgment together, some going to eternal life, others going to eternal condemnation, at the same time. And the rapture, which premillennialists insist happens here, is totally unmentioned at all, being a premillennial invention, not a biblical topic.

The parable of the weeds, found in Matthew 13:24-30 and explained at v36-43, has something to say about all this, too. After describing the harvesting and separating of the weeds and wheat, Jesus explains at v39 that the harvest is at the end of the age. Both stay in the field until the harvest, and both are harvested together, not 1000 years apart.

How different all of the above is from the 'traditional' interpretation (which is really only about 150 years old!) This helps to illustrate why it is so important when considering a particular text to really consider the context, looking at everything that is said, harmonizing everything, and not ignoring or overlooking anything. If that procedure had been followed here the doctrine of a 'rapture' would never have been formulated.

QUESTION SEVEN: If the 1000 years begins at the cross and ends just before Armageddon, is the 1000 years literal or figurative?

ANSWER SEVEN: This is a very important question, since premillennialism takes this chapter, as well as the whole book, literally. So those that hold to that position say that the 1000 years is literally 1000 years.

According to the text, however, the 1000 years must be figurative, for two reasons. One, the cross was almost 2000 years ago, and two, Armageddon is still future! So the 1000 years is going on 2000 and is still going.

Also notice that since, according to v7-10, Armageddon occurs after the Millennium, that means that we must be in the Millennium now, and have been since the cross. That means that Jesus is reigning now over His subjects, the Christians, in His kingdom, which is exactly what 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 and Colossians 1:13,14 teach.

1 Corinthians 15:23-28 discusses events at Jesus' return. Notice that v24 specifically states that at His return he hands the kingdom over to the Father, and that v25 specifically states that he must reign until all His enemies have been put under His feet. V26 tells us what the last enemy is, and it is death. Now tell me, do people still die? Yes, they do, so obviously death has not yet been defeated, and won't be until Jesus returns. Therefore, since v25 says that Jesus must reign until the last enemy is defeated, He must be reigning now, and will until He returns, at which time He hands the kingdom over to the Father, v24. The kingdom reign of Christ, then, ends at the second coming of Christ, instead of beginning then, as premillennialism teaches.

Colossians 1:13,14 further substantiates all of this. V13 specifically states, "For He has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son He loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." This is what God has done. Notice that it is in the past tense. In other words, this has already happened to the Colossians. Paul is telling them about what God has already done for them, and it involves the forgiveness of sins and being brought into the kingdom. Therefore, the kingdom must have been in existence at that time in order for them to have been brought into it, and so modern theories that claim that the kingdom doesn't begin until the return of Christ run just the opposite of what this passage says. And what was true of the Colossians is true of us. When we are baptized into Christ, Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3-7, Colossians 2:11-12, Galatians 3:27, 1 Peter 3:21, then we are also brought into the kingdom that is not of this world, John 18:36. What was true for them is true for us.

We need to make sure we clearly understand that the Millennium ends at Armageddon, instead of beginning after it. This latter mistake is one of the key features of premillennialism.

The reason that mistake is made is because those holding to that view see the beginning of chapter twenty as chronologically following the end of the nineteenth chapter. Now, we can all agree that the end of chapter nineteen is describing Armageddon. We part company over what the first part of chapter twenty is about. Premillennialism teaches that the book describes everything in a liner way, that is, each chapter describes events that occur after the events described in the previous chapter.

We have seen, however, that there is an element of repetition in the book, and that not every chapter describes events that happen after the events described in the previous chapter. We've seen that the end of chapter eleven describes the final judgment, while the next chapter describes the gospel. We've seen that the end of chapter fourteen also describes the final judgment, while the next two chapters end before the final judgment, at Armageddon. We've also seen that chapter seventeen describes the Roman Empire, which would not exist after Armageddon, if chapter seventeen follows sixteen chronologically. The flowchart accurately illustrates the time sequence of all these chapters, clearly showing them not to be linear, but simultaneous.

Clearly, the end of chapter nineteen describes Armageddon, for the third time in Revelation, a clear sign of repetition. Also, the answers to the first four questions concerning chapter 20:1-6 clearly show that the subject under discussion there is the gospel, also for the third time. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that the Millennium is after Armageddon just because it is referred to in chapter twenty while Armageddon is referred to in chapter nineteen.

You can look at this as being similar to watching the news on TV. You hear one story followed by another followed by yet another, yet all the news occurred that day. The fact that the stories were reported one after the other has nothing to do with when the actual events took place. If all the stories were told at the same time who could understand what was being said? Similarly, the stories in Revelation do not necessarily follow each other in the same order in which they are told.

ANSWER EIGHT: Yes, I believe it is. This Millennium is first introduced as "a 1000 years," but is later referred to as "the 1000 years." This would be similar in construction to saying. "He will sit in a chair." followed later by, "He got up from the chair (he was in.)"

ANSWER NINE: If those in the first resurrection reign with Christ 1000 years, the first resurrection must occur at the beginning of the 1000 years, unless one is prepared to show that there are two 1000 year periods under discussion here.

Since there is only one 1000 year period, and we've seen that it began at the cross, then that must mean that the first resurrection took place then, too. A possible piece of physical evidence of this spiritual resurrection might be Matthew 27:52,53, where at Jesus' death graves were opened, and those who had been dead came out of them alive. This would certainly damage the theory of those who believe that this hasn't happened, yet.

ANSWER TEN: Since they came to life at the cross, and therefore before the church was established, and yet held to the testimony of Jesus, it would appear that they were the Old Testament martyrs who were looking for the Messiah. They could also be the 144,000 in the first vision of chapter seven.

Also notice that v6 says that they will reign with him, Jesus, for a thousand years. We met this phrase at 5:10, with 20:6 adding how long it will last. Chapter 5:10 showed that the saved would reign, and based on the answers to the above questions, we see that the OT martyrs reign as well. Since we reign after the cross and before the second coming of Christ, the OT martyrs reign with us at this time, also, during the church age, between the two resurrections, the first one occurring at the cross, and the second one still in the future, occurring at the second coming of Christ. It cannot refer to a thousand year period after the second coming, for there is only one thousand year period, which clearly has to be figurative, meaning a very long time.

ANSWER ELEVEN: Apparently everyone else, both lost and saved, since the cross, Revelation 20:11-15, plus all those before the cross who were not in the first resurrection.

As for the 144,000, the bible just doesn't say as much as we would probably like, so we must resist the urge to fill in the blanks. But based on what the bible does say, here's my position that I've worked out:

1. The 144,000 are in the first resurrection, since that's when the thousand years begin. If they reign a thousand years, they must begin reigning when the thousand years begin.

2. According to what I gather Rev 20:1-6 to mean, the first resurrection occurred at the cross, and might consist of all those who died before the cross who were looking forward to the Messiah. 144,000 is, of course, 12,000 from each Jewish tribe, and probably only means that there were a lot of them.

3. A possible physical representation of this spiritual resurrection would be all those graves that were opened when Jesus died on the cross, Matthew 27:52, 53.

4. These folks reign with Christ for a thousand years. If that number is figurative and we're in the Millennium right now, as I believe I've proven, then they are reigning right now. Who else could they be besides those before the cross? No one else will rise until the second coming of Christ, 20:5.

5. We, as Christians, share in this reigning, but not as part of the 144,000. We're in the second vision of chapter 7.

6. Anyone hoping to be one of the 144,000 in the first resurrection is about 2000 years too late.

ANSWER TWELVE: The answer is really very simple, and the flowchart illustrates it. The v1-6 subbox represents the gospel, and the v7-10 subbox represents yet another view of Armageddon, the fourth one so far. Satan met his first defeat at the cross, while Armageddon represents his 'waterloo,' his ultimate defeat. So together they show Satan's initial defeat followed by his ultimate defeat.

The present time would be between v6 and 7, again represented by the red line as it passes through this box.

In light of the recent terrorist attacks in New York and Washington D.C. I have received numerous emails asking about the possible eschatological significance of these events, such as could this be the beginning of Armageddon, does this indicate that Satan has been loosed now, and does this mean that the return of Christ is imminent? Because of all the emails I have decided to respond here to the above questions.

Obviously the terrorist attacks are the most horrific events we as Americans have ever experienced within our borders. They are our Pearl Harbor, if you will, only with twice as many casualties. What will happen as a result of the attacks we can only guess, but one thing is sure, and that is our future will be different than it would have been had the attacks not occurred. But the question is, is there any biblical significance for all of this?

I believe the answer is an unequivical no. As we've pointed out before, Armageddon will be a spiritual battle of which we will probably be unaware, since it will be virtually simultaneous with the second coming of Christ. And since Jesus Himself said in Matthew 24:36 that only the Father knows when that will be, and since both Peter (2 Peter 3:10) and Paul (1 Thessalonians 5:2) wrote that the Day of the Lord would come as a thief in the night, meaning that we won't know when it will happen, it seems presumptuous to think we will.

Do these events mean that Satan has been loosed now for a little while? What does that even mean? Since scripture doesn't tell us we cannot know with certainty. We see scripture describing Satan as gathering the nations for battle, but, as we've seen with the first six trumpets and the bowls of wrath, one is on very shaky ground if he tries to literalize apocalyptic imagery.

All we can know is that these things are not signs of the end, since, as we've pointed out earlier in this file, there are no signs of the end. The return of Christ might be today or it might be a thousand years from today, or any time in between or after. No one can say. What we can say is that we need to be ready for it all the time.

As horrific as these events are to us, they are not the most horrific that have ever occurred. Those who lived through the bombing of London during WWII can attest to that, as can those who survived the A-bombs in Japan, to name just two events. Thousands of other events could be named. In view of this it almost seems arrogant to think that the terrorist attacks might somehow trigger the end when nothing else has so far. Regarding the above, another comment by Jesus comes to mind, also found in Matthew 24 at verses six and seven: "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen. But the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places." Then at verse eight he describes them this way: "All these are the beginning of birth pains." So there's absolutely no reason to look on these events as harbingers of the end.

But beyond that, Peter wrote that when Jesus does come the earth will be destroyed, 2 Peter 3:10,11. (It won't be needed any longer, anyway!) And only God has that ability! He doesn't need anybody's help, including the terrorists. When it happens it will happen completely and immediately, in one day, 2 Thessalonians 1:10, and there will be no time or need for discussion about it.

SPECIAL NOTE: The following eleven paragraphs concerning Y2K were written by me early in 1999. They remain here so you can compare what was said about it then with your experience of it now:

I suppose now might be as good a time as any to discuss the new millennium that supposedly begins in the year 2000. Why is it called 2000 AD?

Down throughout history time has always been measured from major events. For instance, Isaiah dates his book during the reign of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, Isaiah 1:1, while the time the LORD talked to Moses in the Tent of Meeting in the Desert of Sinaiis dated as the first day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites came out of Egypt, Numbers 1:1.

For most of the world the year 2000 AD has little or no significance at all. Fully two-thirds of the world won't care much about the year 2000 AD. Half of those mark time differently. For 1.2 billion Chinese, one-fifth of the world's population, the year 2000 will really be the year 4698. For Jews, it'll be 5767. For the Zoroastrian, it'll be 2390, while for Muslims it'll be 1421. And the Hindus believe we're in the middle of a time cycle that has 350,000 years to go, while the other half will barely notice the turn of the new millennium at all.

For us the year 2000 AD is supposed to represent the beginning of the second millennium after the birth of Christ. The calendar that we use was apparently introduced by Dionysius Exiguus — or, we would translate, "Dennis the Small" — in A.D. 532. His intention was to date year 1 from the time when, by his best calculation, Jesus was born. Today scholars of all the relevant disciplines agree that this sixth-century monk was off by at least four years and possibly by as many as six. Consider:

There was no year 0. In fact, the number zero is the only number that cannot be expressed in Roman numerals. Therefore the Millennium would begin on 2001, not 2000, if Jesus was born on year 1. But due to calendar corrections that have been made down through the centuries the date of Jesus' birth has been pushed back to 4 BC, with some experts even pushing it back another year or two further than that. Therefore, the new millennium, marking 2000 years since the birth of Christ, really started in 1996! Maybe even a year or two earlier than that! So if all the dire predictions about the end of the world that we see almost weekly in the supermarket tabloids and even some tele-evangelists concerning the beginning of the new millennium were true, they would have already taken place! I don't recall hearing about it on the news, do you?

It is certainly true that only the Father knows when the end will come. Even Jesus doesn't have access to that information, according to Matthew 24:36. If, per chance, God had intended to end the world 2000 years after the birth of Christ, do you think He would adjust that time to accommodate our calendar errors? Would anyone on Earth be able to figure out what Jesus doesn't know?? The point to be made here is simply that there is nothing significant about the year 2000 AD at all, doomsayers notwithstanding. And they completely miss the point that Jesus will come "as a thief in the night," 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Peter 3:10, Revelation 16:15.

It might be helpful to also realize that similar predictions were made prior to the year 1000 AD, and of course nothing came of it then. That leads me to a joke I heard somewhere recently. "What caused the Dark Ages? Y1K."

This time around, of course, there is the growing Y2K bug hysteria, which we expect to turn out to be nothing much more than a temporary bump in the road, if that. There's just too much money to be made (or lost!) to allow it to end civilization as we know it. And even if it does turn out to be more of a problem than anticipated, that won't justify the growing hysteria.

But we need to know that this is a secular, not a religious problem. Common sense dictates that we probably ought to take some precautions, such as having our cars gassed up and having a few days' supply of food on hand, just in case. Those of us who live in areas where blizzards happen take those precautions every winter anyway in case we get snowed in for a few days. But there is no need to prepare for Armageddon.

The only concern we have is what level of hysteria-driven mania we end up with at the end of the year, and whether or not any apocalyptic nutcase groups decide to 'help God out' in ending the world, as if God needed any help! And it may be that some terrorists will try to take advantage of this unique situation by wreaking havoc wherever they can. Any global disturbances, if there are any, will probably be due to that more than anything else.

But let this be clearly understood — if God does end the world on January 1st, 2000 it won't have anything to do with Y2K or anything else that is ours to observe or interpret. And we would expect, based on 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Peter 3:10, and Revelation 16:15, listed above, that God wouldn't end the world then simply because so many seem to expect it! In any event, we should strive to be more like Job, remaining faithful and worshipping God simply because He is God, and for no other reason, regardless of whatever happens or doesn't happen. In short, (and with apologies to William Shakespeare,) we think that this growing hysteria is "much ado about nothing much."

Before we leave this section, let's put together all of the 'Armageddon' verses in a possible chronological order. This will give you a picture of Armageddon you may not have noticed before:

(14:9-12) A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name. This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus."

(20:7,8) When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth — Gog and Magog — to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.

(19:11-18) I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that on one but he himself knows. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all the people, free and slave, small and great."

(16:17-21) The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came a loud voice from the throne saying, "It is done!" Then came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since man has been on the earth, so tremendous was the quake. The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nation collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath. Every island fled away and could not be found. From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible.

(19:20,21) But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

Of course, the above arrangement of the Armageddon verses is just my own opinion, and yours may differ. There is nothing of major significance in this arrangement. It just seems to be the way they might go together. I get a much clearer picture of Armageddon this way.