Bimillennial Preterism According

to Max King

By Kurt Simmons

Introduction

Revelation’s chapter twenty is by far the most difficult in the Bible to interpret.  Its symbolism is so difficult and central to one’s interpretation of the eschaton that whole schools of eschatology have grown up around it.  Pre, Post, and A- millennialism all take their names from their several interpretations of Revelation twenty and the millennia.  Preterists struggle with the millennia also.  In this article we want to discuss the millennia according to Max King.  Specifically, we will use King’s model to demonstrate that Revelation twenty actually contemplates two millennia, as we have always maintained.

King’s Bimillennialism

The probable majority of Preterists today hold that there is a single millennium and that it represents the forty-year period from Christ’s earthly ministry unto his second advent in A.D. 70.  This interpretation finds its source in Max King; at least, he appears to have been the first to articulate it.  However, a closer examination shows that King’s interpretation of the millennium actually produces two millennia.  According to King, the thousand-year binding of the dragon is derived from Matt. 12:29 and the binding of the strong man:  “Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house.”  According to King, binding the dragon symbolizes Christ’s restraint upon the devil by preaching the gospel and announcing the kingdom of heaven.  This began during Christ’s earthly ministry in A.D. 30:

King has it that the loosing of the dragon occurred in A.D. 67 for the battle of Gog & Magog, which he interprets as the Jews’ war with Rome.[2]  Thus, according to King, the thousand-year binding of the dragon consists of the 36 ½ year period beginning in A.D. 30 and ending in A.D. 67.  The thousand-year reign of the saints King interprets as the “pre-parousia” participation of the church in Christ’s resurrection.  According to King, Christ is the first resurrection and the “pre-parousia” saints (the saints from Pentecost to A.D. 70) shared in the first resurrection by repentance and baptism.[3]  The first resurrection ends where the second (general) resurrection begins.  Hence, the reign of the saints with Christ began in A.D. 33 and ended in A.D. 70 at the general resurrection; a period of 36 ½ years.  Reduced to two time-lines, King’s model assumes the appearance of an open-ended parallelogram, like this:

 Although a proponent of the single millennium model, King’s scheme clearly produces two millennia, not the one he supposes.  He simply has not thought through his system well enough to recognize that he is actually advocating two millennia, when he thinks he is advocating only one.  Under King’s scheme, the binding of the dragon begins and ends earlier than the reign of the saints, resulting in two incongruous time lines.  Now, it is axiomatic that if the millennia do not begin and end at the same times, they cannot represent the same period or events.  Thus, the reign of the saints and binding of the dragon clearly point to two separate historical events preceding the great consummation in A.D. 70, not one. Nor can this conclusion be avoided by manipulating the date for the binding of the dragon; for example, by moving it upward to the cross.  For although Revelation twenty does not indicate the events marking the point when the dragon’s binding began, it does tell us when the dragon was loosed – at the battle of Gog & Magog.  (vv. 7-10)  Since the dragon is loosed at the battle of Gog & Magog, but the reign of the saints does not end until the general resurrection when death and hades (the last enemies) are destroyed, it follows that the binding of the dragon will always end earlier than the reign of the saints.  No amount of manipulation can change this simple fact.  Thus, two millennia emerge from the text no matter what is done or proposed.  John Wesley noted this long, long ago:

Now, as it happens, King’s model is merely a Preterist version of Augustinian Postmillennialism pressed into forty years, rather than stretched out over two thousand.  It is therefore significant that Augustine noted the incongruity in the binding of the dragon and the reign of the saints produced by the single millennium model over 1,600 years ago.

Apparently in Augustine’s day a debate was current how the reign of the saints and the binding of the dragon can be encompassed within the same thousand years, seeing that the binding of the dragon ends earlier than the reign of the saints.  Augustine’s unstated major premise is that the antichrist’s persecution begins when the dragon is loosed.  But the martyrs reign until the 2d coming/general resurrection (minor premise).  Therefore, the dragon’s thousand-year binding begins and ends earlier than the saint’s thousad-year reign (conclusion).  King’s interpretation of the millennia is basically adapted or borrowed from Augustine, so predictably it has this very defect Augustine himself called attention to.  Of course, Augustine’s (and King’s) dilemma can never be solved with the single millennium model.  Unless and until it is recognized that two millennia are contemplated by the text, the delemma remains insoluble.  Only when we recognize that the binding of the dragon and reign of the saints refer to independent historical events can the puzzle be solved.

II Analysis of the Passage

Most people are thrown off because John opens Rev. 20 with the binding of the dragon in vv. 1-2, then inserts the reign of the saints in vv. 3-6, then goes on to the loosing of the dragon in vv. 7-10.  “Sandwiching” the reign of the saints this way makes it appear as if the events are simultaneous when in fact they are consecutive.  The actual structure of the passage is as follows:

1) Symbolic binding of the dragon in Tartarus (vv.1-2)

2)  Reign of the saints in Paradise (vv.3-6)

3) Loosing of dragon (vv.7-10)

4) Loosing of the saints from hades Paradise (general resurrection) (vv. 11-15)

Notice the “leap-frogging” arrangement of the chapter: dragon – saints – dragon – saints.  Notice also that the dragon and saints are both bound and both loosed.  Binding signifies passing over to hades; loosing signifies resurrection from hades.  The dragon descends into hades Tartarus (the bottomless pit); the saints ascend to hades Paradise (Abraham’s bosom, the third heaven).  The dragon is resurrected to persecute anew the church; the saints are resurrected to eternal life.  The passage thus may be seen to be arranged thematically, not chronologically; it is arranged according to theme, not order in time.  Now as mentioned before, even though obscured by John’s “leap-frogging” arrangement, the actual events were consecutive. The martyrdom of the saints occurs only after the dragon is loosed, not for the war with Rome, but the persecution under Nero, for that is what the battle of Gog & Magog actually signifies and is the point when the saints begin to “reign” by overcoming and being faithful unto death.  There are three things that are said of the participants of the 1^st resurrection in Rev. 20:3-6:

1) They are martyrs beheaded for not worshipping the beast or receiving its mark;

2) They sit on thrones, and live and reign with Christ;

3) The second death has no power over them.

These same things are said of those that would suffer martyrdom:  On the threshold of his own martyrdom Paul wrote:

Similarly, Jesus promised his martyrs and confessors that would die under Nero:

Could it be more plain?  Those who overcome in martyrdom are immune to the second death, and live and reign with Christ in Paradise pending the general resurrection.  Of course, the rest of the righteous dead reigned in paradise from and after the death of Abel, but the focus here is on the martyrs beheaded under Nero. 

To summarize this part, the two millennia model is unavoidable and is correct.  Two millennia are unavoidable because the reign of the saints extends for a longer period than the binding of the dragon.  Since they do not begin and end at the same time, they cannot represent the same historical events.  King’s model produces two millennia (even though he does not realize it).  However, he has not correctly identified their historical referents; therefore his explanation is hopelessly confused and self-contradicting.  We will explain the millennia more fully below, but for now let us notice Revelation twenty’s agreement with II Thessalonians two.

III. Correlation with II Thess. 2

One principle of interpretation is that there is nothing revealed or portrayed Revelation that is not taught elsewhere in the NT.  What John describes symbolically in Revelation is treated of elsewhere expressly and verbally.  So, where else in the NT would you go for the binding/restraining of the world civil power prior to the persecution under Nero?  Answer: II Thess 2.  In this passage the eschatological crisis described as the saints being “gathered” to Christ in martyrdom is said to be restrained by “he who lets” or restrains.

Among the patristic writers (church fathers), II Thessalonian’s “man of sin” and “son of perdition” is widely understood to be Nero; Rome the restraining power. 

Among contemporary writers such as Gentry, FW Farrar, and J Stuart Russell, “he who lets” is understood in reference to Claudius:

Claudius restrained the world civil power from persecuting the church by extending the religio licita (legalized religions) to the church.    All through the book of Acts we see the Jews attempting in vain to raise a persecution; local authorities sometimes punished Paul and his companions for a breach of the peace, but the church and gospel enjoyed protection of law and Roman officials took no notice of the Jews’ complaints.  With Nero this changed; Nero’s wife was a Jewish proselyte and it is believed by historians and theologians alike that she, at Jewish behest, suggested Christians as a scapegoat for the burning of Rome.  Thus, when Claudius was taken out of the way, Nero ascended the throne and the first imperial persecution and eschatological battle of the end times resulted – portrayed in Revelation by the loosing of the dragon and beast.  It was at this point that the martyrs overcame in death by their testimony for Christ.  Thus, the reign of the saints follows the loosing of the dragon; the millennia are consecutive, not simultaneous.  Allowing for space, which does not permit displaying the time lines side-by-side, the result looks like this:

IV. Further Objections to the King Millennial Model

Before concluding, let us note some additional objections to the single millennium model proffered by King.

1^st – Assumes the dragon is a supernatural, demonic being.  

Rev. is a book of symbols.  The dragon in Revelation is not a demonic being, but Leviathan, a symbol for the world civil power at war with Christ and his church.  In the OT the dragon variously symbolized Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon.  (Isa. 14:29; 51:9; Ezek. 29:3)  In Revelation, the dragon is imperial Rome; its seven heads and ten horns represent the division of empire’s political powers.  The seven heads are the seven emperors that reigned unto the final consummation: Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, and Galba.  Nero was reigning when Revelation was written.  (Rev. 17:10)  The ten horns are the ten provinces into which the empire was divided: Asia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Germany.[8]  Interpreting the symbols in reference to a demonic being deprives the book of sense and renders it unintelligible.

2 - It makes the bottomless pit in Rev. 20 incongruous with its usage elsewhere in Rev. 

According to King (which he borrows from Augustine), the keys of the bottomless pit in Rev. 20 are the cross and gospel of Christ – Preaching the gospel binds the dragon.  It binds the dragon because when the truth is preached allegedly he cannot deceive.  This of course is not true; the gospel is preached today, but billions of people are deceived.  But let us assume for purposes of argument that preaching the gospel somehow binds the dragon; if the keys are the cross and gospel in chapter 20, what are they in chapter 9?  In Chapter Nine the abomination of desolation rises out of the bottomless pit when a fallen star or angel who has the keys of the bottomless pit, releases them.  All Preterists agree that the invasion of the locust army is the Roman invasion of Palestine.  All remark that the five months the locusts are given to torment men corresponds with the length of the siege of Jerusalem.  They are likened to scorpions, corresponding to the name given the Roman catapults used during the siege.  But if the keys of the bottomless pit in Rev. 9 symbolize power over the Roman empire and its legions, how can they represent the cross and gospel of Christ in Rev. 20?

The angel who has the keys and releases the locusts in Rev. 9 is said to be their “king.”  Chapter 17says there are seven kings – five were fallen, one is and another was yet to come.  (Rev. 17:10)  The one who “is” when John wrote was Nero, the 6^th emperor.  Nero held the keys of the Roman empire and it fell to him to command the legions of Rome and loose its armies.  If an emperor of Rome holds the keys in Rev. 9, their possessor in Rev. 20 is almost surely an emperor also; to wit: Claudius.  By no stretch of the furthest imagination can the keys be interpreted as the cross and gospel of Christ.

3- Makes language of martyrdom language of regeneration.

The language of the first resurrection speaks of those martyred under the dragon and the beast.  To make beheading and martyrdom a symbol for regeneration – for repentance & baptism - is hard to grasp and stretches the language of the passage further than it is wont to go.  Revelation was written to the church standing upon the threshold of the eschatological crisis called the great tribulation, when the church would suffer near universal martyrdom.  The point of the imagery is to comfort the church by assuring them God had prepared a place of rest for them pending the general resurrection.  Paul spoke to this same issue in I Thess. 4:13, when he said he would not have the Thessalonians ignorant concerning them that had fallen asleep, that “ye sorrow not, even as other which have no hope.”  Likewise, Rev. 14:13 pronounces a blessing upon those that would suffer martyrdom under the beast, saying, “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.”  Those that died in the Lord are the same as those portrayed living and reigning with Christ in Rev. 20:3-6.   It is nonsensical to say that Rev. 20 is describing regeneration.

Conclusion

1,600 years ago Augustine noted the incongruence between the binding of the dragon and reign of the saints and asked how they could be the same thousand years.  We answer: They aren’t.  The text plainly contemplates two millennia, as even King’s model shows.