Epic Battle: Premillennialism vs. Amillennialism (Debate)

Debate Introduction and the Question of Revelation 19–20

Hey guys, it's Keith Foskey. On last Saturday, July 27th, 2024, I was invited onto the Standing for Truth YouTube channel to debate Lucas Curcio on the subject of the millennium. And I want to thank Donnie Budensky for having me on the program and for being a great host and moderator of that debate.

Well, I'm going to be sharing that debate now on my channel, and I'd like to ask you all how you think it goes. I'd love to hear your comments as you listen, and I encourage you to listen intently to both sides.

I know many Christians are divided over the subject of the millennium. Lucas takes a premillennial position, and as many of you know, I take the amillennial position. So we're debating the subject of whether or not Revelation 19 and 20 are to be understood chronologically.

Lucas says yes, I say no. But what say you? Please listen to the debate and leave a comment below. Before I start the debate, I just want to remind you of a few things. This podcast is a ministry of Sovereign Grace Family Church.

So if you're in the Jacksville area, come visit us at Sovereign Grace Family Church. You can find us at sgfcjacks .org. We're also a partner with tinybibles .com. If you want to get the smallest Bible that you can possibly get on the market in print today, go to tinybibles .com and use my name, Keith, as a promo code, and you will get a percentage off.

Don't forget, also, if you want to reach out to me, you can send me a message simply by going to keithfoskey .com. There's a contact form right on the front page. The email comes directly to me. I look forward to hearing from you if you have a question or an idea for an upcoming show.

All right. Again, thanks for listening. Thanks for watching.

And here comes the debate. May God bless you. All right. Welcome everybody to Standing for Truth. My name is Donnie Budinsky, and I am your host and moderator for tonight's much-anticipated debate on the millennium.

And I am thrilled to have Keith Foskey and Lucas Curcio here to debate this topic. This afternoon's resolution is this, is Revelation 19 to 20 chronological? Lucas takes the affirmative and Keith Foskey takes the negative.

And again, this is the great millennium debate, and I am pumped for this. Gentlemen, what I'd like to do before we get into our opening statements is firstly, thank you both for giving us your time for this epic exchange, for sure, and break the ice, get acquainted a little bit, get to know you guys.

And so Keith, let's start with you as this is your first time here on the Standing for Truth debate platform. And if I'm not mistaken, many call you the King of Amillennialism. So firstly, is that true?

Are the rumors true? And secondly, my brother, tell us a little bit about yourself and what you do at your ministry.

Yes, I am Keith Foskey. I am the King of the Amillennialists. That is a joke that was started by Eschatology Matters, and it's just taken off and kind of gotten a life of its own. I do a lot of humor online.

I do stand-up comedy and Christian comedy and things like that. So it's just part of the humor not to be taken too seriously. But I am an Amillennialist, and so that's the position I'm going to be standing for today.

I also pastor Sovereign Grace Family Church in Jacksonville, Florida, where I have served for the last 18 years.

Awesome. Well, I appreciate that introduction. I also appreciate the humor. So laughter is the best medicine. And one of the first ways I found you was through your funny shorts. And then I found your podcast and people can find that here.

So, Keith, we've got your YouTube channel and a podcast where people can check you out and find more from you if they like what they're hearing. And so again, Keith, thank you for the intro. Lucas, great to have you back.

Not your first time here on the Standing for Truth Debate platform. So I guess you're going to have to be the king of premillennialism then, the king of premill, clashing with the king of Amill, clash of the titans tonight is what it is.

So, Lucas, how are you doing, brother? And tell us a little bit about yourself and your channel.

Great, great. Well, I classify myself as a prince of premill, but unlike Keith, I'm self-ordained, so I did not get voted in. So don't accept that title. But yeah, so my name is Lucas Curcio. I live in northern New Jersey.

It's fantastic to be here and I'm honored to be here. I am a Christian and theologically I call myself a Methodist. And in relation to this debate, I am a premillennialist. I am married. Me and my wife, we have a beautiful daughter.

So God has blessed us with that. I have my Master's of Arts in biblical exposition from Liberty University, and I am the founder of Method Ministries. I say that term, it sounds fun. Method Ministries is a online ministry where we talk about topics that are related to like, you know, theology, current issues that are going on, both politically as well.

And it's just a name and a title to get the truth of the scriptures out there. So that's a little bit about me.

And again, you know, I'm grateful to be here. Very good. It's a privilege to have you both. It really is an honor to be hosting this debate between you two true professionals. Again, this is the Great Millennium Debate.

It is a Saturday afternoon showdown. So I'm excited for this. For those who want to see more from Lucas Curcio here, you can find a link to his YouTube channel in the live chat and also in the description box.

And so, gentlemen, appreciate the introductions from the both of you. Thank you so much. And OK, for the audience sake, let's go through today's format. And so again, the debate resolution is, is Revelation 19 to 20 chronological?

Lucas taking the affirmative. So he'll be kicking us off with a 20 minute opening statement. So 20 minute openings from both our guests. We're going to have a comprehensive one today, followed by a 10 minute uninterrupted rebuttal.

Then we're going to get into everybody's favorite part of these debates, the cross exam. So we've got a lot of time to discuss the topic in cross examination, 50 minutes in total. That's 25 minutes each.

Then we'll have a concluding statement where for our concluding statement, Keith will start and then Lucas will get the last word as he is the affirmative. And then this is where we get you guys in the audience involved.

We'll have a roughly 25 to 30 minute audience Q &A. So please, if you have a question on tonight's topic, do your best to let me know who the question for Lucas or Keith and also tag me at Donnie or at Standing for Truth.

And that way I won't miss your question. OK, gentlemen, let's jump into our first opening statement. And so Lucas, please, whenever you're ready, just let me know and we'll get your timer.

Going. OK, well, I just want to say it's a true honor to be here with brother Keith. I'm really looking forward to this. And thank you to Donnie for moderating and hosting us as well. It's great to be back.

And I want to dedicate this opening statement to all my pre-mill brothers. And, you know, to keep with the humor of this debate, it's time to end the spiritual reign of the king of all mills and take that crown to God be the glory again.

The affirmative I defend tonight, Revelation 19 and 20 are chronological, requires the nature of this debate to be exegetical. I mention this because there is much attempt by my brothers to interpret these two chapters by telescoping for the portions of scripture.

They'll use verses like Psalms 5010, the cattle on a thousand hills are gods and claim because a thousand here isn't literal, neither is Revelation or Matthew 12, where Jesus speaks of binding Satan to say this is the same binding in Revelation 20, which proves that Revelation isn't literal.

But this is equivalent to interpreting Romans 9 with John 3, 16, such attempts don't reflect proper exegesis because they're two different contexts. Thus, both Keith and I must engage with what John taught in his original intended meaning and not venture outside these chapters.

My position is that if you do this, you'll walk away with Revelation 19 and 20 being chronological and not recapitulatory, thus proving pre-millennialism. Recapitulation means to go back to a time prior.

So it's like watching a movie and at some point there's a scene that takes you back to a time prior to the present. Amil's claim, Revelation 20 verse one does this when it says, then I saw as in John is seeing a vision of a time prior to the second coming of chapter 19.

But if this single text of scripture doesn't do this, then amillennialism is wrong. Amillennial scholar Anthony Hokema admits this and says that if these chapters are chronological, we are then virtually compelled to believe that the thousand year reign depicted in Revelation 20 must come after the return of Christ in chapter 19.

Let me demonstrate that you're compelled to believe pre-millennialism by defending the thesis. The textual evidence of Revelation 19 and 20 favors chronology. And the first piece of evidence that the ands of chapter 19 and 20 have a chronological pattern.

We see this in verse 20 and the beast was seized and with him the false prophet chronological sequence. Verse 21, and the rest were killed with the sword, which came from the mouth of him who sat on the horse, chronological sequence, and all the birds were filled with their flesh chronological sequence.

Now, you can get technical and say that and doesn't always mean historical sequence, but can be used as a visionary linking device. And this is where I'll engage with respected scholar G .K. Beale, who offers two powerful arguments for the amillennial view.

Argument number one of Dr. Beale, he writes in his famous commentary in Revelation, only three out of thirty five occurrences of and in 19 clearly indicate sequence in historical time, while the remainders serve as visionary linking devices.

So I agree with Dr. Beale that John does use and as a linking device at times rather than a sequential device. John does this in verse 19, and I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against him who sat on a horse and against his army.

The answer here are used to link this event to Christ's second coming and not for chronological sequence. But there's a difference between and being used to link events versus and being used to recapitulate events, and this is where Dr. Beale gets problematic.

He goes on to admit that the three and in verses 20 and 21 are historically sequential. He even grants that perhaps verse 14 and indicates a sequence in historical time. So he admits that all three ands in verses 20 and 21 are chronological, but then when it comes to chapter 20, verse one claims his pattern is broken by saying it's recapitulated.

And here's where it gets even more problematic. Beale further admits that the majority of ands in chapter 20 are historically sequential. He writes the majority of the ands in chapter 20 do refer to historical sequence.

Dr. Beale acknowledges that there's a pattern of ands that are chronological. But Dr. Beale is a smart man and argues for more than just one word for the ominal position. And this leads us into argument number two of Dr. Beale.

He states that the word and in reference to an angel coming down out of heaven is always recapitulatory. He writes where and I saw occurs in Revelation, followed by reference to an angel coming down out of heaven.

It always introduces a vision either reverting to a time before the preceding section. So Dr. Beale arguments that recapitulation is found in a phrase and I saw an angel coming down rather than a single word.

And this is Beale's strongest argument, and I pay my respects to him for engaging with the text. Nevertheless, to solidify this argument, this exegesis must be consistent with the narrative of the story and the whole of chapter 20.

Dr. Beale even admits this and says that the word and cannot solve the problem one way or another. Other contextual evidence must be considered. In other words, even Dr. Beale admits that your interpretation of Revelation 20 must also account for more than just verse one.

We need to look at all the textual evidence. And if we do that, we find that John's use of the phrase and I saw another angel coming down out of heaven. All the data favors chronology and not recapitulation.

And on this note, let me say that I am not against recapitulation. I agree that Revelation does recapitulate a time such as it does in chapter 12. But for a text to recapitulate, we must have textual evidence.

In other words, I disagree with Dr. Beale, who says that recapitulation is founded a phrase and I saw another angel coming out of heaven. Rather, recapitulation is not attached to a phrase, but rather to the narrative.

And we can easily see this in chapter 12, where we're introduced by a new vision from the previous chapter. Revelation 11 ends with Christ's second coming. And then chapter 12 changes that narrative to John seeing a woman who gives birth to Jesus and Satan attempting to destroy him and his followers.

Clearly, chapter 12 takes us back to the first coming of Christ, but it does so without the phrase and I saw another angel. Yet in Revelation 20, we don't have a narrative change of a prior event, but a continuation of the battle from chapter 19.

So if we're to assume that chapters 19 and 20 are chronological, we would predict that after the beast and false prophet are defeated, Satan would be the next one on the list to go. By the way, this is how science works.

It makes a set of assumptions and then based upon that makes predictions to test its validity. If we make an assumption that chapters 19 and 20 are chronological and predict that right after the beast and false prophet are defeated, Satan is, we can test this and see this is exactly what we find.

In verses 20 and 21 of chapter 19, Christ defeats the Antichrist and false prophet and then Satan in the next chapter. It's important to mention this because there's an unholy trinity in Revelation. You have the Antichrist, the false prophet and Satan.

So if there's no defeat of Satan in chapter 19, then Satan isn't defeated. But if we keep reading, we find the narrative continued and just one verse after Christ defeats the beast and false prophet, he defeats Satan.

So there's a single story arc being told. Now, in addition to this, another piece of evidence is chapter 20, verse 10. Here, John says that after Satan is released after the millennial, he makes another failed attempt to destroy God's people.

Then he is thrown into the lake of fire, and John then mentions that it's the same place where the beast and false prophet are, past tense. John speaks of the beast and false prophets place in the lake of fire as having already happened, that is prior to Satan's casting into the lake of fire, which means that he has a narrative in mind from chapter 19 in the past tense, and Satan's arrival is a thousand years after theirs chronologically.

Now, some all males are aware of this problem and in response point out that in the Greek, there is no verb are, as some translations have it as the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and false prophet are.

In the Greek, it just reads that Satan is thrown into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet. Let me point out two things. One, the majority of Greek scholars recognize this as being in the past tense.

The NASB, LSB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, CSB, Young's Literal Translation, even the NIV all translate this list goes on and on as being in the past tense. Two, there doesn't need to be a verb are, the word where presupposes that the subject is there prior to that person's arrival.

For example, if I told you that I was going to eat at a restaurant where my brother is, you'd assume that my brother is there before me. In the same way, John is saying that Satan is thrown into the same place where the beast and false prophet are before Satan arrives.

This means there's chronology. The beast and false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire first past tense, then Satan is thrown in after them. The only thing that accounts for Satan's later arrival is a thousand year gap, which demands we read these two chapters chronologically, not recapitulatory.

Another piece of evidence for chronology is that there's a total absence of Christ's second coming in chapter 20. So the Amill agrees with Premill that chapter 19 is Christ's second coming, but then states that chapter 20 recapitulates and covers the time between Christ's first and second coming.

OK, so where in chapter 20 is the second coming of Christ? I would reference Dr. Beale on this, but he's completely silent and it doesn't make any mention of any second coming in chapter 20. So let's assume that chapter 20 recapitulates.

We would predict that Revelation 20 mentions Christ's second coming. Yet we don't find it here. It's completely missing. Some postmales have attempted to answer this and say that the fire in verse nine, which comes out and out of heaven to destroy Satan's army is Christ's return.

But if this is actually true, which is a huge stretch, then at best this is extremely vague and hardly believable. The textual evidence of chapter 20 is clear. There is no second coming mentioned because John already mentioned in chapter 19, which means that chapters 20, I'm sorry, that means the chapters 19 and 20 are chronological.

Other textual evidence in favor of chronology, the binding of Satan in chapter 20 hasn't happened yet. Dr. Beale says that Satan's binding is the devil will not be able to stop the preaching of the gospel or is expanding reception during most of the church, most of the age preceding Christ's return.

Or another omnible view interprets the binding as Kim Riddlebarger says. Binding of Satan means is that after the coming of the long expected Messiah, Satan lost certain authority that he possessed prior to the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of the Savior.

Neither of you works with the text. First, the binding of Satan is not a probation, but an incarceration. So incarceration means being confined to a prison cell rather than having some sort of access to him around.

And we see this because Satan is not just bound with a chain. So John isn't saying that Satan is on probation with an ankle bracelet attached to him. John says in verse three, the angel threw him to the abyss, shut and sealed it over him.

It's a total removal of Satan from the earth. Notice too, it says he's in the abyss. So if we compare this to chapter nine, it talks about an angel opening the bottomless pit and out of this pit come demonic beings who enter earth.

The bottomless pit is in the abyss because revelation nine 11 calls it that this means in revelation, the abyss is not on earth because the demons come out of the abyss onto the earth. Thus, Satan is chained, thrown into the abyss, then the door is shut and sealed, not having any access to the earth, and he's clearly not in probation.

Second, Amos interpret this binding of Satan taking, or I'm sorry, this binding of Satan as taking place at Christ's first coming. But there's a major problem with this because John says after the thousand years, Satan is released.

So here's a problem. If Christ's work on the cross is a permanent victory, in what sense is Satan released from Christ's victory at the cross after a thousand years? So what this means is that the binding of Satan here is not referring to Christ's redemptive work on the cross that frees us from Satan's kingdom and brings us into his.

So while I do agree that Christ did bind Satan at the cross, but that binding was redemptive. The binding of Satan in chapter 20 is a political binding, as John says, so he won't deceive the nations, not a redemptive binding.

And we can't conflate the two. They're two different contexts. Last, Revelation 20 verse four is the bodily resurrection, which happens after Christ returns, proving it follows chapter 19. In chapter 20, verse four, John says that the martyred souls came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Some mammals interpret the phrase came to life as regeneration, but the subjects are already Christians, which means they are already born again, which means they're already regenerated, which proves that John isn't referring to regeneration.

Because otherwise John would be saying those born again are born again. It would be a total redundancy. Other mammals claim the resurrection refers to the intermediate state of saints entering heaven when they die.

Now, while there are times in the Bible that do refer to a spiritual resurrection of saints when they first come to faith, yet nowhere in the Bible does it describe saints entering heaven as a spiritual resurrection.

So again, if the saints are already born again and they already died, the only resurrection that happens after death is a bodily resurrection. Furthermore, the most important fact of this resurrection here is verse five, where John says the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.

This first proves without a shadow of a doubt that the resurrection of the saints here is bodily. As a sentence example, this is like saying I was flu vaccinated yesterday, but the rest of my family did not get flu vaccinated until a week later.

Regardless of the time, both me and my family were flu vaccinated. So the phrase did not get flu vaccinated until a week later communicates in the sentence that they'll receive the same type of vaccination only later than me, rather than a different type of vaccination.

And I mentioned this, and this is very important because the Amil wants you to believe that the resurrection of the saints is spiritual, a different type, while the resurrection of the dead is physical, a different type.

But John's phrase did not come to life is a negative statement intended to communicate that the same resurrection that happens to the saints is the same resurrection that happens to the dead, with the difference being only at a later time.

So rather the Amil interprets the resurrection of the saints as regeneration or the intermediate state is really irrelevant and a moot point because clearly John is not saying the rest of the dead did not become regenerated or entered heaven until a thousand years were completed.

Since both groups are experiencing the same type of resurrection, the only interpretation that works is the bodily resurrection. But the Amil insists that the resurrection of the dead in verse five is bodily, while claiming the saints are spiritual.

But let's compare John's phrase came to life with Revelation 2 verse 8. There Jesus says himself, the first and the last who was dead and has come to life. Both in chapter 20 and chapter 2 verse 8, it's the same exact phrase come to life.

So just like Christ, after Jesus died, the resurrection he had was bodily. So too when believers die, their resurrection after death is bodily, not spiritually. So again, the Bible never refers to saints dying and entering heaven as a spiritual resurrection.

The only resurrection that Christians experience after they die is a bodily resurrection, the same one that our Lord had and that we share in. And John teaches in Revelation 20 that after Jesus comes, the saints will rise bodily and reign with Christ for a thousand years, while after the millennial, the dead will be raised to damnation.

Thus, we look at all the evidence. It favors not recapitulation, but chronology, which means that these two chapters teach premillennialism. Thank you. And that concludes my opening statement.

Lucas, thank you very much for that 20 minute opening statement. We're now going to hand it over to Keith Foskey for his 20 minute opening statement. So I will reset the timer and Keith, whenever you're ready.

Let me know. The floor is yours.

Yeah, I'm good. Well, first I want to thank Donnie for putting this debate together and for Lucas agreeing to be my interlocutor and for both of you for being willing to be seen with me in public. The book of Revelation is by far the most enigmatic of all the New Testament writings, and this is proven by how many variations of theology have arisen based on it.

The most perplexing portion has to be chapter 20, as it too has spawned entire systems of theology to the point that some who hold various positions on this chapter would even anathematize those with differences, something I find very troubling.

If we cannot have at least some humility to our approach of Revelation 20, I believe we ourselves, we find ourselves as arrogant as the Pharisees and the Sadducees who could not see Jesus for who he was because they were so committed to their traditions.

And even when the truth was standing in their midst, he was unrecognizable. They were convinced that Jesus has to fulfill certain prophecies according to their understanding, and because he didn't, they rejected him.

I pray that we would never be so foolish. So while I begin this debate holding strongly to my convictions in this area, I reject the notion that a difference of interpretation on this passage would be tantamount to heresy, as some claim.

We can differ on our view of the millennium and still be brothers in Christ, as Lucas is my brother. The question before us today is whether or not Revelation 19 and 20 are chronological. However, the real issue is whether Revelation 20 is meant to be understood as happening before or after the return of Christ.

Both Lucas and I believe Revelation 19 is the return of Christ. Therefore, for his position to be right, he must prove that these two chapters are meant to be understood as chronological. If I can prove they're not, I've made my case.

However, even if I fail to prove my case regarding chronology, I could be right about the timing of the millennium, as many post-millennial advocates see Revelation 19 as regarding the of Christ on Jerusalem in AD 70, which is then followed by the millennium or the church age in Revelation 20.

So there are those who would see them as chronological and yet still hold the position that Revelation 20 speaks of now, the church age. I say this because I want to make an important point that whether you're amillennial or postmillennial, we're on the same side of this debate.

Both of us believe the church age is the same as the millennium. Both amill and postmill believe the millennium is the interadvental event, meaning it occurs between the first and the second coming of Christ.

In fact, up until about 100 years ago, postmillennialism and amillennialism were not formally differentiated. In Kim Riddlebarger's book, he cites Louis Burkhoff, who said that in his 1938 systematic theology that the name amillennialism is new indeed, but the view in which it has applied is as old as Christianity.

Even B .B. Warfield, usually portrayed as postmillennial in his eschatology, remarked to his friend Samuel Craig that amillennialism of this type, held by the esteemed Dutch colleagues Herman Bovink and Abraham Kuyper, is the historic Protestant view as expressed in the creeds of the Reformation period, including the Westminster Standard.

So what I'm saying is this is not to say that postmill and amill are the same. There are differences, but the distinctions lie in the nature, character, and expectations of the millennium, not so much the timing.

Both amill and postmill are both postmill. Jesus returns after the millennium. We can call them inaugurated millennialists, or even there's a phrase called nuke millennialism, which means now millennialism.

We believe it's already begun. We believe we're in it, and we believe it is consummated with the return of Christ, where Lucas believes that the church age ends with Christ's return, and then the millennium begins.

This means he believes that the millennium is a post-advental event, that it comes after Christ's second coming, but before the eternal state. This introduces an unnecessary interjection not found in any of the New Testament writings regarding the return of Christ.

The New Testament presents Christ returning and the eternal state being established. Death is destroyed and victory is forever won. We hear much about this age and the age to come, but nothing of some mysterious intermediate kingdom where Christ returns to rule over an imperfect earth where nations are poised to rise up against him after Satan is finally released.

Premillennialism teaches that Christ will return to an imperfect earth. He will reign over an imperfect kingdom, which will end in yet another battle after he has returned for a thousand years. While Lucas's position on the timing of the millennium is popular today among many evangelicals, it is not the majority view of the church.

It is not the church historical view, even though some would argue that the premillennial view was held by some of the early church fathers. It has not been the majority view of the church as a whole.

As Richard Mueller has observed, quote, The Protestant Orthodox, both Lutheran and Reform, denied the notion of an earthly millennium to dawn in the future and viewed the text, Revelation 20, as a reference to the reign of grace between the first and second visible coming of Christ, the age of the ecclesia militans, or the church militant.

So, how do we come to this conclusion? Well, we begin with the context of the passage, overall context and immediate context. Overall context of Revelation is that it is prophetic and apocalyptic. It is a literature written in vivid images, which point to greater realities.

It is not intended to be taken woodenly literal, nor are the visions given in expressly, explicitly chronological order. The visions are pictures which have to be interpreted and often are recapitulating the same events over and over.

Dr. Beale has already been mentioned, but I'll mention him again. G .K. Beale emphasizes that the visions in Revelation are not strictly chronological, but rather cyclical. The visions presented in the book are not meant to be read as a linear sequence of events.

Instead, they're often covering the same ground from different perspectives. The different visions in Revelation parallel each other, each cycle, retelling the story of the end times with varying details of emphasis.

And this means that the same events or themes may appear multiple times throughout the book. For instance, the seals, the trumpets, and the bowls are likely not three separate successive acts of judgment, but rather all a retelling of the judgments from different perspectives.

The end of the world is depicted in chapter 6, chapter 11, and chapter 16. The final battle is seen in Revelation 16, Revelation 19, and again in Revelation 20. And it's interesting that the word the battle, the word battle there with a definite article, indicates one final battle, the battle, not a battle, but the battle.

And it's only used in three specific places, chapter 16, chapter 19, and chapter 20, and they're all pointing to the same event, the final battle. So instead of seeing Revelation as strictly literal and chronological, we should understand it as progressive parallelism, understanding the visions of Revelation as parallel accounts of the same events, with each cycle progressing the narrative further, providing additional details and additional perspectives.

The immediate context of Revelation 19 gives a graphic picture of the coming of Jesus in judgment. And take note what happens in this text, because this is hugely important. Jesus returns in glory to bring judgment on his enemies.

The armies of the nations are gathered to make war with him, and in a single act, he destroys the nations, which are gathered against him. He destroys them. At the end of Revelation 19, the enemies of Christ are vanquished.

But then in Revelation 20, we're told that Satan is bound not to deceive the nations. What nations? Who? Who is he supposed to be deceiving? These nations have just been slaughtered. Their flesh is being eaten by the birds of the air.

This is why it's reasonable to see that Revelation is going back to the beginning and giving a new vision. This new vision will tell the story of triumph again from a different vantage point. This view will show the heavenly reality which has occurred throughout the church age.

Now, interpreted within this context, we will see that Revelation 20 is going back to the beginning and giving a vision of the church age in three parts. And like any good Baptist, I'm going to alliterate my three parts.

The binded, verses 1 to 3. The blessed, verses 4 to 6. And the battled, in verses 7 to 10. So let's look first at the binded, verses 1 to 3. Is this text meant to be taken literally? Well, no one argues that the chain or the key are literal.

I guess some people do, but most people don't. But they will argue that the thousand years has to be literal. However, the term thousand is almost always used symbolically everywhere else in Scripture.

Psalm 5010 has already been mentioned, but also Psalm 90, verse 4. For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday. Psalm 105, verse 8. He remembers his covenant forever. The word that he commanded for a thousand generations.

Not a thousand and one, because we got to take it literally. 2 Peter 3, 8. But we do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years. Not a thousand and one, because we have to take it literally.