I recently raised this point, and apparently made a solid point because there was no refutation. So I make it here again, in case it wasn't seen. There is a dominant group here who vehemently insist that the *only* legitimate biblical view of Rev 20 is Amill. But not only was the early Church apparently Premill, as historian Philip Schaff claims, but it was viewed as the natural interpretation of what John wrote in Rev 20. The earliest Premills were following, they believed, what John had literally written.
The argument for Amill began to become dominant after Origen and Augustine, a few centuries later, who placed a lot of stock in Symbolic Interpretation. Nobody would dispute that there is such a thing in literature as Symbolism, but I should think that there are some hard fast rules as to when Symbolic Interpretation should be allowed and when it should not be allowed?
My argument has always been that Context determines the meaning of words and how they should be interpreted, symbolic or literal. And if there is no apparent reason from the context that determines words should be interpreted symbolically, then a literal rendering would be what the author intended to convey to the reader.
It is not enough to say the book of Revelation is an apocalyptic book full of symbolism. There are many examples of books that used lots of symbolism without having to view every portion of the book as symbolic. Even in a work of science fiction, symbolically depicting the dangers of nuclear annihilation, we cannot say that everything depicted in the story is symbolic. Let's say a young man asks his father to pilot a moon vehicle. Just because the story is symbolic, and science fiction, does not mean the young man's request of his Dad symbolizes something other than what it is--a request to literally pilot a moon vehicle!
Similarly, the book of Revelation is indeed a book that uses lots of symbolism, but that doesn't mean that when we're told Christ comes back and a 1000 years of Christian reign follow that event that the entire thing is symbolic of anything other than what is literally said. The only way to tell what is symbolic and what is not is the context.
"7 heads and 10 horns" is obviously symbolic, as we can tell by the context. But there is no reason to assume the number "7" does not refer to a literal number of "7" elements described, symbolically, as "heads." There are literally *7* heads, in which the "heads" demand to be viewed as symbolic of kings, and the number "7" argues that there are literally 7 kings.
We cannot therefore say that the Millennium itself is symbolic, unless we are told so, or if the context demands it. But we can, without any other evidence, assume this is completely literal, even if many symbols are used throughout the book. We cannot assume the binding of Satan is symbolic of Christ's defeat of Satan at the cross without evidence that this was meant to be taken symbolically. For lack of evidence we should take the context "as is," and interpret things literally. Satan may have been defeated at the cross, but he is literally bound at the Return of Christ.
And the reign of those raised from the dead, in Rev 20, would be literally resurrected martyrs who reign literally for a thousand years, rather than assume they symbolize the resurrection of Christ and a mystical reign of the Church over Satan during the NT age. None of this is anything more than supposition without real evidence.
Symbolism, to be taken as such, must have a context that demands it be taken as such. And we don't have that. We should therefore assume Rev 20 is to be taken literally, with a literal thousand years, a literal resurrection of the Church, a literal reign of the Church for a thousand years, and a literal binding of Satan for a thousand years.
Some say that the context demands a "1000" be taken symbolically because the Bible regularly and normally uses "1000" in a symbolic fashion, such as "a day is as a 1000 years." In this case, the passage referred to presents a different context than the context in Rev 20 such that "1000" must be interpreted in the context in which it is used.
To transfer the meaning of "1000" in one context to another passage with a different context is an Interpretive Fallacy. "1000" can be used as a saying in "a day is as a 1000 years." But "1000" can be expressed as a literal thousand years in a context in which there is no literary saying at all, and no inference that a saying is being expressed. For example, I could say that the Byzantine Empire reigned for a thousand years, and it would literally be true, despite the fact that there are sayings in which a "1000" can be interpreted as a form of literary exaggeration.
To say Satan will be bound a thousand years, that Christians will rise from the dead and rule on earth for a thousand years, is hardly a "saying." Its own context therefore suggests this is a literal period of a thousand years.
The argument for Amill began to become dominant after Origen and Augustine, a few centuries later, who placed a lot of stock in Symbolic Interpretation. Nobody would dispute that there is such a thing in literature as Symbolism, but I should think that there are some hard fast rules as to when Symbolic Interpretation should be allowed and when it should not be allowed?
My argument has always been that Context determines the meaning of words and how they should be interpreted, symbolic or literal. And if there is no apparent reason from the context that determines words should be interpreted symbolically, then a literal rendering would be what the author intended to convey to the reader.
It is not enough to say the book of Revelation is an apocalyptic book full of symbolism. There are many examples of books that used lots of symbolism without having to view every portion of the book as symbolic. Even in a work of science fiction, symbolically depicting the dangers of nuclear annihilation, we cannot say that everything depicted in the story is symbolic. Let's say a young man asks his father to pilot a moon vehicle. Just because the story is symbolic, and science fiction, does not mean the young man's request of his Dad symbolizes something other than what it is--a request to literally pilot a moon vehicle!
Similarly, the book of Revelation is indeed a book that uses lots of symbolism, but that doesn't mean that when we're told Christ comes back and a 1000 years of Christian reign follow that event that the entire thing is symbolic of anything other than what is literally said. The only way to tell what is symbolic and what is not is the context.
"7 heads and 10 horns" is obviously symbolic, as we can tell by the context. But there is no reason to assume the number "7" does not refer to a literal number of "7" elements described, symbolically, as "heads." There are literally *7* heads, in which the "heads" demand to be viewed as symbolic of kings, and the number "7" argues that there are literally 7 kings.
We cannot therefore say that the Millennium itself is symbolic, unless we are told so, or if the context demands it. But we can, without any other evidence, assume this is completely literal, even if many symbols are used throughout the book. We cannot assume the binding of Satan is symbolic of Christ's defeat of Satan at the cross without evidence that this was meant to be taken symbolically. For lack of evidence we should take the context "as is," and interpret things literally. Satan may have been defeated at the cross, but he is literally bound at the Return of Christ.
And the reign of those raised from the dead, in Rev 20, would be literally resurrected martyrs who reign literally for a thousand years, rather than assume they symbolize the resurrection of Christ and a mystical reign of the Church over Satan during the NT age. None of this is anything more than supposition without real evidence.
Symbolism, to be taken as such, must have a context that demands it be taken as such. And we don't have that. We should therefore assume Rev 20 is to be taken literally, with a literal thousand years, a literal resurrection of the Church, a literal reign of the Church for a thousand years, and a literal binding of Satan for a thousand years.
Some say that the context demands a "1000" be taken symbolically because the Bible regularly and normally uses "1000" in a symbolic fashion, such as "a day is as a 1000 years." In this case, the passage referred to presents a different context than the context in Rev 20 such that "1000" must be interpreted in the context in which it is used.
To transfer the meaning of "1000" in one context to another passage with a different context is an Interpretive Fallacy. "1000" can be used as a saying in "a day is as a 1000 years." But "1000" can be expressed as a literal thousand years in a context in which there is no literary saying at all, and no inference that a saying is being expressed. For example, I could say that the Byzantine Empire reigned for a thousand years, and it would literally be true, despite the fact that there are sayings in which a "1000" can be interpreted as a form of literary exaggeration.
To say Satan will be bound a thousand years, that Christians will rise from the dead and rule on earth for a thousand years, is hardly a "saying." Its own context therefore suggests this is a literal period of a thousand years.
