There a variety of "takes" on the Book of Revelation within the amillennial camp, depending on how you interpret prophecy. (See the "What IS Amillennialism?" section within the Introduction for definitions). Preterists view it as having been at least partially fulfilled in 70 AD, with the destruction of Jerusalem. Historicists view it as having taken place over the last 2,000 years. Individual pastors may have a variety of interpretations, especially of specific verses. The primary Lutheran position is that the Book of Revelation is a picture of the on-going conflict between the church and the forces of evil. The events portrayed are symbols for all the events and tribulation that have taken place since the birth of the Church nearly 2000 years ago. There are Lutheran churches and Lutheran pastors that hold other views. The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) doesn't seem to have an "official" position that all pastors adhere to. In talking to ELCA members, it doesn't seem like the subject comes up much. Here is one article on their stance from their web site: http://www.elca.org/co/behind.html There is another one here: http://www.elca.org/wo/eyeopen/rapture.html

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod produced a document that is pretty exhaustive on their view:

The "End Times" - A Study on Eschatology and Millennialism

I haven't found much difference between the LCMS view and the WELS (Wisconsin Synod) view described below:

Here is what the foreword to Revelation, The Distant Triumph Song by Siegbert W. Becker, Northwestern Publishing House, 1985, has to say:

Just a note, here. The person who wrote the above doesn't understand the pre-millennial view at all. An amillennialist sees only one judgment. The judgment at Jesus' return and the judgment at the great, white throne are the same thing to them. So, "judgment day" = the end of the world = Jesus second coming. A premillennialist does not think that his judgment is postponed for 1,000 years. Many, maybe even most, premillennialists believe that Jesus can return at any moment. No matter what version of the Rapture turns out to be true, if you are among the ones NOT caught up in the air, you have plenty to worry about. If a pre-tribulation rapture is true, and you are not among those taken, than chances are, you're going to die an unbeliever in the Tribulation. If one of the other rapture positions turn out to be true, and you're not taken, you're in even worse shape. And you do NOT want to be among the resurrection of the wicked and the judgment in front of the great, white throne.

 And then, from the Dr. Becker's introduction:

Here's some of what the book Eschatological Prophecies and Current Misinterpretations has to say about Revelation:

You'll pick up more of the Lutheran view as we go along.

What I think about Revelation -

1. I believe Revelation is meant to be understood, and that if our people would spend less time trying to fit the symbolism into our "box" and more time just reading it, that they would generally understand it. If you are familiar with the Old Testament, the events (for the most part) make perfect sense. Sure, it's full of symbols, but the symbols are explained in other places of the Bible.
2. I think the "idealistic" interpretation method sounds good on paper, but in real life what it has accomplished is to render the Book of Revelation basically meaningless. If the Lutheran interpretation is the correct one, it requires an "expert" to understand and then communicate the "real" message and that takes it out of reach of the members of our congregations. I find it very hard to accept that God would do that with so much of His Word. Yes, there are things we won't understand until Jesus himself can explain them. Yes, there are things that sound weird and confusing, but I believe that if you just READ it and accept it as written, you can generally understand it.
3. I believe the events of Revelation shown with the opening of the scroll are yet future. There are quite a few interruptions and kind of "side bar" commentaries, but generally, the Book of Revelation IS chronological.

I'm not about to develop my own commentary here on the Book of Revelation. I'm just going to show you things here and there, so that you can start to understand how these two approaches get you to two different places.

When I was still struggling with why I wasn't "getting" it, I did a little study on the first verse of Revelation.

The word translated "Revelation" is apokalupsis.

AV - revelation 12, be revealed 2, to lighten + 1519 1,
manifestation 1, coming 1, appearing 1; 18
1) laying bear, making naked
2) a disclosure of truth, instruction
2a) concerning things before unknown
2b) used of events by which things or states or persons
hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all
3) manifestation, appearance

That verse is obviously talking about the Day of the Lord.

It was translated "coming" but it's the same word: apokalupsis. There's no question that this verse concerns the second coming of Christ.

It's translated "appearing," but again, it's that same word, apokalupsis. This verse also concerns the second coming of Christ.

The same word is also used in ways having to do with revealing:

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation [602] of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began (Remember, in Greek, a mystery is something that has been concealed up to that point)

1Cr 14:26 How is it then, brethren when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation [602], hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

2Cr 12:1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations [602] of the Lord. (NASB: Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable ; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.)

2Cr 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations [602], there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation [602] in the knowledge of him

So, the "apokalupsis" of Jesus Christ is the revealing of things previously hidden, but now disclosed. The whole objective of this book is to lay it all out for us. Revelation is not meant to be a riddle, but to reveal.

In other words, Jesus meant for us to understand this! Us -- "he that readeth" -- not just experts -- not just pastors -- US. Given the first three verses above, I believe it's reasonable to believe that what is being revealed is what will happen leading up to the revelation of Jesus himself, at his second coming. It's not the history of the church that is being revealed, but as verse 1 says, the Revelation of Jesus Christ. And, it's not written in some impossible-to-understand language. It's written to reveal.

Consider this - the Book of Revelation calls itself a prophecy at least six times.

Rev 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed [is] he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

In addition to those, a friend pointed out these equivalent expressions:

The very first verse in Revelation has an interesting word, must (dei) shortly come to pass. You see the same word in Revelation 4:1 and 22:6. Here's exactly what that word means:

third person singular active present of 1210;
must 58, ought 31, must needs 5, should 4, misc 7, vr ought 1 ; 106

1) it is necessary, there is need of, it behooves, is right and proper
1a) necessity lying in the nature of the case
1b) necessity brought on by circumstances or by the conduct of
others toward us.
1c) necessity in reference to what is required to attain some end
1d) a necessity of law and command, of duty, equity
1e) necessity established by the counsel and decree of God,
especially by that purpose of his which relates to the
salvation of men by the intervention of Christ and which is
disclosed in the Old Testament prophecies
1e1) concerning what Christ was destined finally to undergo, his
sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension

In other words, God says these things will, absolutely happen. In the other verses, the word "prophecy" or "prophesy" is used:

AV - prophecy 16, prophesying 3; 19
1) prophecy
1a) a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring
the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the
wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things
hidden; esp. by foretelling future events
1b) Used in the NT of the utterance of OT prophets
1b1) of the prediction of events relating to Christ's kingdom
and its speedy triumph, together with the consolations
and admonitions pertaining to it, the spirit of prophecy,
the divine mind, to which the prophetic faculty is due
1b2) of the endowment and speech of the Christian teachers
called prophets
1b3) the gifts and utterances of these prophets, esp. of the
predictions of the works of which, set apart to teach the
gospel, will accomplish for the kingdom of Christ

Here are some ways it is used:

Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy [4394] of Esaias (Isaiah), which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy [4394] of the scripture is of any private interpretation

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy [4394] came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

You can see that the same word is used to describe the prophecy of the Old Testament. The word "prophesy" as in Rev. 10:11 is obviously similar:

AV - prophesy 28; 28
1) to prophesy, to be a prophet, speak forth by divine inspirations,
to predict
1a) to prophesy
1b) with the idea of foretelling future events pertaining esp.
to the kingdom of God
1c) to utter forth, declare, a thing which can only be known
by divine revelation
1d) to break forth under sudden impulse in lofty discourse or
praise of the divine counsels
1d1) under like prompting, to teach, refute, reprove, admonish,
comfort others
1e) to act as a prophet, discharge the prophetic office

So, the Holy Spirit had John indicate that the Book of Revelation was an actual prophecy, in the same way that the Old Testament prophets gave prophecy. How were people supposed to know if someone was a real prophet of God?

So, the only way I can know that something is really a prophecy is if it actually comes to pass. If Jeremiah prophesied that the captivity of the Jews in Babylon was going to be 70 years, Daniel read that number and believed it. He knew that Jeremiah was really a prophet. We can trust that Jesus is really the Messiah because of all the prophecies that he fulfilled to the letter. The prophets said he would be born of a virgin, born in Bethlehem, be betrayed by a friend, be buried in a rich man's grave, and on and on.

If the events do not come true, they are not a prophecy from God. We should either expect them to come true, or take Revelation out of our Bibles. There are certainly symbols, but the symbols are like a code, and the rest of the Bible is like a key. And, in between the symbols, there are plain sense words. Just because one part is a symbol does not mean that the whole thing is.

The Bible is filled with countless examples of mixing symbols with plain words. Here's just one:

Isaiah 37:29 Because you rage against me and because your insolence has reached my ears, I will put my hook in your nose and my bit in your mouth, and I will make you return by the way you came.

The Lord had Isaiah give this message to King Hezekiah about the King of Assyria. Isaiah records what happened next - an angel of the Lord killed 185,000 soldiers in the Assyrian camp and Sennacherib returned to Nineveh. In this verse, the hook and bit are obviously symbols but the I will make you return by the way you came was perfectly literal. As it's often been said, "When the plain sense makes perfect sense, seek no other sense."

Here's something else that I think is important. These are the very last words, not only of the Book of Revelation, but also of the Bible. Please read them carefully. They hit me pretty hard:

Now, I'll give you an example. This is almost at random, because our Lutheran commentaries do this with almost everything in this book:

Now, with me and my child-like intellect, I read those passages and say, "OK, there is going to be hail and fire, mixed with blood and things are going to get burned up. Fish are going to die and boats are going to get wrecked. It all seems pretty straight-forward. This is a prophecy, and it says this is what's going to happen, so I believe it. One day it will happen as described. No problem.

Now, here is how Dr. Becker explains those passages in his Revelation: A Distant Triumph Song:

My response to this is, "Huh???" That's very rude, but, my goodness! Now, would I, without the help of a pastor trained in this thinking, come up with that? Even if I accepted this explanation as truth, I would then HAVE to come to the conclusion that it is not possible for me to understand Revelation on my own. And, if that is the explanation of the "prophecy," how could I ever judge whether the prophecy had come to pass?

Our Lutheran interpretation of the Book of Revelation may sound good in the abstract, but when it comes down to specifics, it makes no sense to me!! Now, I know this is brazen and horrible of me; I mean, who am I? I'm nobody! But I think he's wrong. There's no way that a regular person would come up with this explanation, just reading the Bible on his own. Dr. Becker takes the plain words and makes them mean something else entirely. And how do I know he's right? I have no way to judge. The Bible says you judge a prophecy by whether it comes to pass. If it's really just symbols, well, you can make anything symbolize anything.

For example, if I were to give you a printed copy of this, perhaps the white of my paper symbolizes the purity of my heart, having been washed with the blood of Jesus. The blue of the names of the books and verses symbolize the truth of God's Word, and that true doctrine comes only from God and straight from His Word. The red used occasionally symbolizes the blood of Jesus, for without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. I may be sinning in this writing, but I am covered by the blood of Jesus.

Sounds great, doesn't it? But in truth, the paper would be white because I have white paper. I used red and blue because I like red and blue. It's not that the other couldn't be true. It just isn't. But how would you know?

So, for me, Dr. Becker took what seemed to be plain sense and turned it into basically meaningless church talk. Which brings me to these verses again:

Now, not all amillennial commentaries would say those verses meant heresies. I have another Lutheran commentary that says the trumpets stand for all natural disasters that have occurred in the last 2,000 years. So, which is it? Heresies? Or natural disasters? Wouldn't it just be easier to take the words as they're written? Don't they seem pretty clear as they are?

I could write a book just about the Book of Revelation, but I'll just give you a little bit to consider. I think that it is real prophecy. I think we can expect the events portrayed to actually happen. Yes, there are symbols, but the symbols are defined throughout the Bible. I think the numbers given are real, as you could see from their parallels in Daniel. I think that most of the Book of Revelation is not about the entire New Testament period, but about the "Day of the Lord," which is still future.

With that last thought in mind, here are some interesting verses:

Eze 2:9 And when I looked, behold, an hand [was] sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book [was] therein

Eze 2:10 And he spread it before me; and it [was] written within and without: and [there was] written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe.

These are the only places in the whole Bible that talk about a scroll written on both sides. I think that it's possible that these all are the same book/scroll. A regular scroll was only written on one side. To have writing on both sides was a very unusual thing. If they are the same book, then you can see that the Book of Revelation, which is primarily about unsealing the scroll, is about the Tribulation, when the curse goes "forth over the face of the whole land."

 I believe we should just read what Revelation says and believe it. The symbols are explained either within the book itself or elsewhere in the Bible. If it seems to make plain sense as it stands, than don't try to make it mean something else. For example, read this section:

Now, our Lutheran commentators, and our own pastors always proclaim that the 144,000 is symbolic of the church and all the people saved through all the ages. The "multitude which no one could count" is the church in heaven. Here's what Dr. Becker has to say:

I could say many things about this, but I will simply tell you why I have a problem with this.

1. First, he says that this can not be the actual 12 tribes of Israel, because no list ever appeared like this.

My response - Each of Jacob's sons was given a name that meant something in Hebrew. The list of tribes appears over and over in the Bible, in different orders. Some Bible teachers believe that God did this intentionally - to spell out a different "sentence" each time. There's nothing inherently weird about the order. Every other time the list of tribes appears in the Bible, it is referring to physical Israel. If Scripture interprets Scripture, why would this time be different?

At the end of this section on Revelation, I put together a little commentary on what the names spell out when they're in this order.

2. Next, he says, In the Old Testament the tribe of Levi was not counted with the tribes among whom the promised land was divided. Yet Levi is included here.

This is really silly. This list doesn't have anything to do with inheriting land. It has to do with sealing bond servants before the coming judgment. In my mind, that means they are going to be protected through it. Levi was included in the OT lists several times.

3. Then he says, the tribe of Dan is omitted. Commentators who insist that the literal tribes of Israel are meant struggle to explain why Dan is not mentioned. Yet these explanations satisfy only those who have prejudiced the case. It may be a little easier to explain why Ephraim is not mentioned. Ephraim and Manasseh were sons of Joseph, and mention of the tribe of Joseph in the eleventh place may be a substitute for Ephraim. Yet, in the Old Testament Ephraim is one of the most important tribes. The whole northern kingdom was sometimes called Ephraim. So even this variation from the standard Old Testament terminology supports the fact that here we are not dealing with the literal twelve tribes of the nation of Israel.

To me, there are perfectly legitimate reasons why God did this. For one thing, there are several verses which seem to link Dan to the antichrist and to Satan:

Gen 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward. This was a prophecy given by Jacob about his son Dan and the tribe that would bear his name. For this reason, some people believe that the beast that rises from the land (Israel) - the false prophet - will be from the tribe of Dan.

Deu 33:22 And of Dan he said, Dan [is] a lion's whelp: he shall leap from Bashan. This is another prophecy made about Dan. It brings to mind two more verses:

1Pe 5:8 Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

Psa 22:12 Many bulls have surrounded me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me.
Psa 22:13 They open wide their mouth at me, As a ravening and a roaring lion .
Psa 22:14 I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me.
Psa 22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws ; And You lay me in the dust of death.
Psa 22:16 For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet.
These verses have long been seen as a prophecy of Jesus on the cross. The "Bulls of Bashan" are somehow in league with Satan - either people or perhaps even demons, laughing and mocking the Lord on the cross.

Jer 8:16 The snorting of his horses was heard from Dan: the whole land trembled at the sound of the neighing of his strong ones; for they are come, and have devoured the land, and all that is in it; the city, and those that dwell therein.

Jer 4:14 Wash your heart from evil , O Jerusalem, That you may be saved. How long will your wicked thoughts Lodge within you?
Jer 4:15 For a voice declares from Dan, And proclaims wickedness from Mount Ephraim. (Both "missing" tribes mentioned)
Jer 4:16 "Report it to the nations, now ! Proclaim over Jerusalem, 'Besiegers come from a far country, And lift their voices against the cities of Judah.
Jer 4:17 'Like watchmen of a field they are against her round about, Because she has rebelled against Me,' declares the LORD.

However, for me, these say it all:

Deu 29:18 so that there will not be among you a man or woman, or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of those nations; that there will not be among you a root bearing poisonous fruit and wormwood.
Deu 29:19 "It shall be when he hears the words of this curse, that he will boast, saying, 'I have peace though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart in order to destroy the watered land with the dry.'
Deu 29:20 "The LORD shall never be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and His jealousy will burn against that man, and every curse which is written in this book will rest on him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.

1Ki 12:28 So the king consulted, and made two golden calves, and he said to them, "It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; behold your gods, O Israel, that brought you up from the land of Egypt."
1Ki 12:29 He set one in Bethel,(Bethel is in Ephraim, the other tribe not mentioned) and the other he put in Dan.
1Ki 12:30 Now this thing became a sin, for the people went to worship before the one as far as Dan.

100 years later, it is still a problem:

2Ki 10:28 Thus Jehu eradicated Baal out of Israel.
2Ki 10:29 However, as for the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which he made Israel sin, from these Jehu did not depart, even the golden calves that were at Bethel and that were at Dan.

Jdg 18:30 And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land.

Is that just a coincidence? That the two tribes listed for hosting the golden calves are the same two missing from the list in Revelation? God had said that the tribes that turned away from him to serve other Gods would have their names blotted out, and they are blotted out in Revelation.

4. As mentioned above, these verses clearly proclaim that the 144,000 are sealed from the sons of Israel, and to make that even more clear, John lists the tribes they are from. My question is this - If God wanted to make it clear that this was really ISRAEL that He was talking about, how could He have made it any more clear? If this is really symbolic of the church on earth, what tribe am I from? What right do we have to reject what this very clearly says? To me, it seems like this is just more denying of any future for Israel.
5. These 144,000 are sons of Israel. In Revelation 14:4, the same group of 144,000 are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. In both these cases, the reference is to males. If this is the church, where is the female reference? The Bible consistently refers to the church in a feminine way - the bride of Christ. God doesn't just change language like that on a whim. On those rare occasions when He is not consistent, it is for a particular reason. If this is truly the church, what is the reason here?
6. Dr. Becker concludes his argument by saying, Everywhere in Revelation, twelve is the number associated with the church.

Scripture is to interpret Scripture. The Book of Revelation is written in code, but the key to the code is throughout the rest of the Bible. In this particular case, you have to go back to Genesis, and Joseph, the son of Jacob. From Jacob came the twelve tribes of Israel.

The sun is Rachel, the "mother" of the nation of Israel. God often refers to Israel as a woman, such as in the Book of Hosea. The moon is Jacob, the "father" of the nation of Israel. (His name was even changed to "Israel.") The eleven stars are Jacob's other eleven sons, besides Joseph. Joseph himself would be the twelfth star. Looking back at Revelation, you can see that what is portrayed is the nation of Israel. Jesus came from Israel, not the church. Remember what Moses said? "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him." (Deu 18:15). The church came after Jesus ascended to heaven. In a sense, we came from Jesus, but Jesus did not come from us.

Yet, even though this is certainly "Scripture interpreting Scripture," this is what Dr. Becker has to say about Revelation 12:1-6:

Do you see the circular reasoning here? This is the very next use of the number 12 after the twelve tribes listed in Revelation 7. He asserts that THAT 12 must be the church, because the other 12's in the book refer to the church. Then, here in Revelation 12, he says that THIS 12 must be the church because we have already established that 12 is the church. If your presupposition is that there is no future for Israel, than all these things must somehow be made to fit that idea.

There's so much more I could go into, because the whole Book of Revelation and the Lutheran interpretation of it is like that. To me, amillennialism is a box that Scripture must be crammed into. This symbolizes this and that symbolizes that, and ta da! It fits!

There's so much more that could be said. For example, is Satan really bound? Is he unable to deceive the nations? Germany was pretty deceived under Hitler. Is he bound any differently than he was in the Book of Job, when he could do nothing without God's permission?

And, what about this idea that the chronology of Revelation bounces from the beginning of the New Testament period to the end of the world and back again with no warning. How would we know that? And, without any preconceived notions, why would someone claim that?

Would you read ANY other book this way? Don't you normally take what the author says at face value? And, if Revelation IS to be read differently, where are we told that? Why is this vision different from other prophecies in the Bible? Do we take Isaiah 53 at anything other than face value? Yet, other parts of Isaiah are symbolic - even apocalyptic. Using the rules we've set up for Revelation, shouldn't we apply them to Isaiah 53, too?

These are just some of the questions that I continually came back to as I tried to adopt amillennialism.

 The Revelation 19-20 "Break"

This is another thing that makes no sense to me. In Revelation 19, we see Jesus coming out of heaven. The Lutheran commentaries agree that this is Jesus' second coming, when he comes to judge. Remember that when the Bible was written, there were no chapters and verses. It was all together. Please note all that takes place in Chapter 19: heaven is opened. Jesus comes with his armies, and brings God's wrath. You see that the beast and the false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire. Obviously, these are all things that take place at Jesus' second coming. We're all in agreement on that.

Then comes Chapter 20, which starts with an interesting word: and. In Greek it's kai. According to Strongs, it means this:

2532 kai {kahee}
apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes
also a cumulative force;; conj

It's not just a word thrown in for our benefit. It's a specific Greek word used to connect things. In this case, it is connecting what just happened in Chapter 19 - throwing the beast and false prophet into the lake of fire - with what happens next - binding Satan. Please note all the uses of the word "kai":

Rev 19:11 And(kai) I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Rev 19:12 His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

Rev 19:13 And (kai) he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Rev 19:14 And (kai) the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

Rev 19:15 And (kai) out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Rev 19:16 And (kai) he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Rev 19:17 And (kai) I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all [men, both] free and bond, both small and great.

Rev 19:19 And (kai) I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

Rev 19:20 And (kai) the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Rev 19:21 And (kai) the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which [sword] proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Rev 20:1 And (kai) I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

Rev 20:2 And (kai) he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Rev 20:3 And (kai) cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Rev 20:4 And (kai) I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Do you see how the "kai" hooks these things all together? The Greek gives no justification for separating them. Remember, the Bible was written without chapters and verses. Those were added much later. I don't see a legitimate break between Chapters 19 & 20. Of course, some people think there is. For example, my People's Bible - Revelation by Wayne Mueller, published by Northwestern Publishing, ã 1996 says:

This is circular reasoning. You can not come to this conclusion simply by reading the text. A regular person is going to see Chapter 20 as coming after Chapter 19. There is nothing here to lead us to understand otherwise. The events in Chapter 19 are linked by the "kai" between each one. The events in Chapter 20 are linked by the "kai" between each one. The events of Chapter 19 are linked to the events of Chapter 20 by the "kai" in the first verse of Chapter 20:

Rev 20:1 And (kai) I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

How could it be otherwise? If we don't bring any preconceived notions to this, but just let it say what it says, how are we going to arrive at the conclusion that Revelation 20:1 goes back in time 2,000 years? So, then I'm stuck again, as I've been stuck over and over again, not being able to just accept the words as they stand.

That leads right to my next problem - the binding of Satan. Chapter 20 begins with this:

Rev 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Let's look at part of that more closely:

Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive ([4105] planao) the nations ([1484] ethnos) no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Here is that word for "he should deceive":

4105 planao {plan-ah'-o}

AV - deceive 24, err 6, go astray 5, seduce 2, wander 1,
be out of the way 1; 39

1) to cause to stray, to lead astray, lead aside from the right way
1a) to go astray, wander, roam about
2) metaph.
2a) to lead away from the truth, to lead into error, to deceive
2b) to be led into error
2c) to be led aside from the path of virtue, to go astray, sin
2d) to sever or fall away from the truth
2d1) of heretics
2e) to be led away into error and sin

And for "the nations":

1484 ethnos {eth'-nos}

AV - Gentiles 93, nation 64, heathen 5, people 2; 164

1) a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or
living together
1a) a company, troop, swarm
2) a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus
2a) the human family
3) a tribe, nation, people group
4) in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans,
Gentiles
5) Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians

The amillennial understanding of this is that Satan is bound right now, and has been since the cross. He is not able to stop the spread of the Gospel any more. In reading the definitions above, however, that doesn't make sense to me. According to this, Satan is not able to lead anyone astray anymore when he is bound. All I have to do is look at the world to see that this is not true and has never been true so far.

If Satan was really bound at the cross, how was that binding any different than the binding in evidence in the Book of Job, when he could do nothing without God's permission? And, where does this verse fit?

1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

If Satan is a roaring lion looking for people to devour, how is he bound? And, what about this?

2Cr 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

2Cr 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

That would seem to be a direct contradiction of this:

Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

And, what about these? It's the same Greek word.

Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

If the Lutheran position that the Papacy is the antichrist is correct, then this verse was fulfilled AFTER the so-called binding at the cross:

Rev 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by [the means of] those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

The evil in our world is so obvious that throughout history, people have declared that we must already be IN the "little season when Satan must be loosed." Otto of Freising (1111-1158 AD) introduced the idea that the 1,000 year binding of Satan began with Constantine's legalization of Christianity (325) and would end in about 1325, when Satan would be loosed to deceive the world prior to his ultimate destruction. The concept of Satan's binding from 325-1325 was thereafter commonly accepted by Medieval writers. It led to the idea that the Antichrist would appear in the fourteenth century. It was this general belief that influenced John Wycliffe (1329-1384) to identify the pope as the Antichrist in the fourteenth century. John Foxe, who wrote the Book of Martyrs in the 1500's, believed that Satan was loosed when groups like the Waldensees began to suffer persecution for their stand for truth. Even Martin Luther wrote in January of 1532, "The last day is at hand. My calendar has run out."

 Unfulfilled prophecy

If you take the Book of Revelation for what it says (decoding the symbols using the references from the rest of the Bible), there are clearly prophecies that haven't been fulfilled yet. For example, we are still waiting for all the green grass in the world to be burned up. The rest of the Bible is also filled with examples of prophecies that have not yet been completely fulfilled. For example, what about Babylon? The Bible says it is to be destroyed, never to be rebuilt or inhabited again (The Persians never destroyed it. They went in through the water canals and took the city without a fight. They then made it their new capitol). Saddam Hussein has spent billions of dollars rebuilding it to its former splendor. I guess he sees himself as a modern Nebuchadnezzar. He even minted coins with both his and Nebuchadnezzar's pictures. So, take the Bible for what it says, and we're still waiting for that destruction.

Or, what about Damascus? Isaiah 17:1 says that Damascus will cease to be a city. Yet, Damascus advertises itself as the world's oldest, continuously inhabited city. Skeptics point to Isaiah 17:1 as a failed prophecy because of that. Do we weasel around and say, "Well, it really WAS destroyed." Or do we just say, "We're still waiting for that."

There are many, many other examples. It's kind of the same thing as having a specific Tribulation period. Jesus comes like a thief, and yet there is prophecy yet to be fulfilled. How can both be true? I don't know, but somehow they are. We have no right to believe one and dismiss the other. In my opinion, we have no right either to say that this symbolizes this or that symbolizes that - unless the Bible clearly tells us it does. We have no right to render ANY of God's Word basically meaningless. God says what He means and means what He says. Just because we don't understand it doesn't make it untrue or simply symbolic.

Continue on to Does it matter?

Or, Why I still take Communion

Do you have comments or questions? Contact me!

Back to Introduction

Back to Part 1 - Conversion of the Jews

Back to Part 2 - The restoration of Israel and earthly reign of Messiah

Back to Part 3 - Questions about the Antichrist - Already fully fulfilled in the Papacy?

Back to Part 4 - The Tribulation - A specific period?

Back to Part 5 - So how can Jesus come like a thief?

Back to Part 6 - The world doesn't end in an instant

Back to Part 7 - Will this present world come to an end at Jesus' return?

 

If this web site has been helpful to you in any way, please drop me a note and let me know.

Contact me!