There are numerous passages of Scripture over which variant translations and differing opinions come into conflict at sundry times. One such passage is Rev. 20. 1-5 which speaks of the post-millennial revolt of Gog and Magog against the camp of the Saints.
Every little while an attempt is made to show that the A.V. and other versions are at fault; that a revolt conflicts with other scripture; that it is contrary to what should be expected after a thousand years of beneficent divine rule; and that it should be transferred to the beginning of the millennium where, according to our other doctrines, it appears to fit in far better. After having observed and been interested in several of these attempts to uproot the A.V. we are convinced the current attempt will reach the same abortive end as the rest, for the simple reason that it traverses the same line of argument with minor variations. We will need something more emphatic to alter our view of the matter.
The proposition rests on three main points:
1. It is a solitary statement that lacks co-lateral support from other scriptures;
2. It ignores the natural thankfulness of humanity after a blessed rule of peace and security such as the world had not previously seen;
3. Revolts against successful governments take a lot of staging and this one in particular would not be possible against the omniscience of Christ and the Saints without being suppressed before it could begin.
On the first point, Isaiah 2. 4; 60. 18; Jere. 3. 17, and others, come into the discussion-
“They shall not learn war any more”;
“Violence and destruction shall no more be heard in thy land”;
“Neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart”.
It is worth while analyzing the circumstances that lie behind these statements. First, it has to be remembered that in a world where human governments have been destroyed there will be no outside enemies to make war imperative, or to bring into play the periodic violence to which Israel was accustomed. And secondly, the people, despite their reformed walk, will still have either in fact or in possibility an “evil heart”.
A variety of other possibilities weave themselves around these main factors, to which thought could be given. But we are not here concerned with speculations and possibilities except to show that these passages themselves are not as absolute as they are thought to be in the cause of contention, and that any deduction based on superficial evidence must be carefully weighed before being pressed into service. For example, the phrase “no more” will have to be given the same weight as “ever and ever” in Rev. 11. 15, which when compared with 1 Cor. 15. 24, 25, turns out the final result after Christ has reigned for a long period until all enemies are subdued and then passes over the kingdom to God for His absolute dominion. Isaiah 2. 4 etc., must similarly be viewed as the first consequence of a long term process in the manifestation of divine glory. Such instances of comprehensive prophecies covering in one single statement the first and second appearances of Jesus Christ are familiar to us all.
Secondly, that such a revolt would not reflect the desire of men after a long reign of peace and prosperity does not square with what is known of human nature. Men want personal power just as much as Adam in the Garden of Eden desired to have power with God. The world’s subsequent building of national power on personal ambitions substantiates the point.
Thirdly, that it would not be possible without prior knowledge of governmental authorities presupposes that conditions prevailing at the end of the 1,000 years will be the same as they are now, and that the King should have no desire other than to suppress any incipient revolt. Who can say but that this could be part of his provision for the ultimate elimination of mortality from a society about to be made completely perfect. Suppose God should want it that way, but has not thought it appropriate to disclose the fact?
The proposal is based too much on “ifs” and “doubts” and we reach the conclusion that there is nothing to be gained by being wise above what is written, or trying to determine what God’s management of his world should be until He chooses to lift the veil to our sight. Until that is done Rev. 20. 1-5 must stand as written along with other unrevealed matters and then we shall all be the happier and more contended with Truth entrusted to our care.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One