Revelation 20 - In Depth Bible Commentaries

2270 2271 2272 2273
/ satan and he bound him a thousand years. 20.3 And he threw him into the abyss,
2268
(...continued)
Hendricksen comments that “Once this ‘order of events’ or ‘programme of history’ is
seen, Revelation 20 is not difficult to understand. All one needs to do is to remember the
sequence: Christ's first coming is followed by a long period during which Satan is bound; this,
in turn is followed by Satan's little season; and that is followed by [the]...judgment...It is clear
that the theory of the premillennialists is at variance with the facts here.” (P. 185)
We can agree with Hendricksen's criticism of the "premillennial" view; but we must also
criticize Hendricksen's view that a precise "order of events" or "programme of history" can be
validly drawn from this material, which is, we think, highly symbolical, unsystematic in nature.
We can clearly see John's belief that the Little Lamb is the "Lord of history," who both
has won, and will ultimately win, eternal victory over all the evil forces in history--but the material
is not systematic enough in nature to allow exact chronological conclusions--whether "premillennial"
or "postmillennial." That John is depicting the fall of evil forces, and their “binding”
for a long time is clear. It is likewise clear that the Lord Jesus and His followers have gained
and are gaining eternal victory; but the attempt to draw further chronological and doctrinal
conclusions from this highly symbolical material is based upon a very weak foundation!
In addition, it is to be noted that where futurist interpreters like Walvoord read “the
second coming of Christ” into the text, Hendriksen is reading “Christ’s first coming” into the
text. Attempts to discover a precise “order of events” or “programme of history” are
unsuccessful.
2269
The definite article , ho, “the,” is omitted by Uncial Manuscript 051, Minuscules
1854, 2050 (see), and the Majority Text (A). The omission does not change the meaning of
Revelation, and may reflect the influence of the Hebrew Bible, in which the noun !j'F'h;,
hassatan occurs both with and without the definite article. Or, the omission may reflect the
differing views of Greek writers across the centuries as to whether or not the article should be
used with nouns and names.
For occurrences of “adversary” in Revelation, see 2:9, 13, 13, 24; 3:9; 12:9; 20:2, 7.
Aune comments that the phrase “the serpent, the ancient one, who is accuser and the
adversary,” “appears to be a gloss added to ensure the reader’s proper identification of the
dragon...The dragon was first introduced in Revelation 12, where he is mentioned no less
than eight times (12:3, 4, 7, 7, 9, 13, 16, 17) in a narrative that continues into Revelation 13,
where he is mentioned twice (13:2, 4). The aliases of the dragon, the ancient serpent, the
devil, and satan are listed in 12:9 as they are here.” (P. 1082)
2270
Following the name “satan,” “adversary,” the phrase ðëáíí ôí ïêïõìÝíçí ëçí,
ho planon ten oikoumenen holen, literally, “the one leading astray the inhabited earth
whole,” taken from Revelation 12:9, is interpolated into the text by Uncial Manuscript 051,
Minuscules 2030, 2377, the Majority Text (K), and the Harclean Syriac (see). The interpola-
(continued...)
991