A System of Infidelity
By WAYNE JACKSON
A rash of paper-back books is
flooding the religious market these days advocating the well-worn theory of
premillennialism. One such production is
entitled, The Late Great Planet Earth.
It is authored by Hal Lindsey, a graduate of the
THE ISSUE DEFINED
The premillennial concept is the result of a gross literalizing of a few symbolic verses in the Book of Revelation, coupled with a complete disregard for scores of Bible verses of clearest import. The word “premillennial” itself is derived of two components: (a) PRE-meaning “before,” and, (b) MILLENNIUM- denoting a period of 1,000 years. It thus suggests that Christ will return to the earth just prior to a 1,000 year reign. The premillennial theory contains several facets and for that reason, the following quotations are introduced to bring the main points into focus.
“It is held that the OT prophets predicted the re-establishment of David’s kingdom and that Christ himself intended to bring this about. It is alleged, however, that because the Jews refused his person and work he postponed the establishment of his kingdom until the time of his return. Meanwhile, it is argued, the Lord gathered together ‘the church’ as a kind of interim measure.” (Ernest F. Kevan, Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 352)
“Generally, premillennialists believe that shortly before the second coming the world will be marked by extraordinary tribulation and evil and the appearance of the Anti Christ. At his coming, Christ will destroy this anti-Christ and believers will be raised from the dead. There will then follow a millennium of peace and order over which Christ will reign with his saints. At the close of this time, Satan will be loosed and the forces of evil will once again be rampant. The wicked will then be raised, and a final judgment will take place in which Satan and all evil ones will be consigned to eternal punishment.” (Van A. Harvey, A Handbook of Theological Terms, p. 151)
“For centuries the
Jews have been scattered among many nations. In preparation for the return of
Christ and the beginning of the millennium, they are being gathered back to
their own land, according to prophecy, in a national restoration. David’s throne will be re-established at
To summarize, the premillennial
view asserts that Christ came to this earth for the purpose of setting up his
kingdom. He was, however, surprisingly
rejected by the Jews. Hence, he
postponed the kingdom plans, and set up the church instead, as sort of an
emergency measure. When he returns, he
will allegedly raise only the righteous dead, restore national
The basic fallacy of the premillennial concept is a materialistic view of the reign of Christ. This same false notion was entertained by the ancient Jews, and actually, was responsible for their rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah. The fact is, this mistaken Jewish expectation of a literal, physical kingdom spawned the millennial doctrine that was taught in the early post-apostolic age. As one historian observed:
“The idea of a millennial reign proceeded from Judaism, for among the Jews the representation was current, that the Messiah would reign a thousand years on earth, and then bring to a close the present terrestrial system. This calculation was arrived at, by a literal interpretation of Psalm 110:4, “A thousand years are in thy sight as one day.” It was further argued that as the World was created in six days, so it would last six thousand years, the seventh thousand would be a period of repose, a sabbath on Earth to be followed by the destruction of the World.” (Neander’s History of Christian Dogmas, Vol. I, p. 248)
The necessary implications of the premillennial doctrine are grave indeed. This heresy strikes treacherously at numerous facets of Biblical truth. In reality, it is a subtle form of infidelity which must be vigorously opposed.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE THEORY
CHRIST’S REJECTION BY THE JEWS — The premillennial view implies that the Jewish rejection of Christ was an unexpected miscarriage in the plans of God. Whereas, the truth is, that rejection was plainly foretold by the OT prophets. Isaiah had prophetically said: “Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” (Isaiah 53:1) In the NT, when describing the rebellion of the Jews, John wrote: “But though he had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him: that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John. 12:37, 38) Again, it was prophesied: “The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner.” (Psalms 118:22; Cf. Matthew 21:33-46) Having been foretold centuries before, the Jewish rejection of Christ was therefore no surprise!
THE KINGDOM — Nothing in the
Scriptures is any clearer than the fact that the
(1) The prophet Daniel declared: “And in the days of those kings shall the God
of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed .. .“ (Daniel 2:44)
The “those kings” of the prophecy
were Roman kings (the fourth part of the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, Daniel 2:31ff). Now the
(2) John the Baptizer, Jesus
himself, and the twelve disciples, all preached that the kingdom— was “at hand,” literally meaning, “is come
near.” (Matthew 3:2; ;
10:7) (Compare Luke for the meaning of “at hand”) Thus, they preached the nearness of the
(3) Christ exclaimed, “Verily I say unto you. There are some here of
them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the
a. Jesus promised that the kingdom would come with power. (Mark. 9:1)
b. But that power would accompany the reception of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 1:8)
c. Thus, the kingdom would come with the arrival of the Spirit.
d. But the Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost (some 50 days after Christ’s death). (Acts 2:4)
e. Therefore, the kingdom was at that time established!
(4) On the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter preached the inaugural discourse and thereby used one of “the keys of the kingdom” (Matthew ), to admit the obedient into the church. If Peter used the kingdom’s key to open the church, when they were not the same institution, he stands convicted of burglarizing the church of the Lord!
(5) Shortly before his death, the Savior
promised his disciples, “. . . ye may
eat and drink at my table in my kingdom . . .“
(Luke ) The Lord’s table was placed within the
kingdom. If one can find disciples
partaking of that table, it will be a demonstration of the kingdom’s
existence. Now notice; when Paul wrote
to “the church.. .
(6) When Paul wrote to the Colossians, he affirmed that God “delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love” () The term “translated” (Greek, methis temi) means to “remove from one place to another.” (Arndt & Gingrich, Greek Lexicon, p. 500.) The tense of the verb reveals that their entrance into the kingdom had already occurred at some point in the past.
(7) When John wrote to “the seven churches that are in Asia,” (Revelation 1:4), he stated that Christ had loosed them from their sins by his blood and made them “to be a kingdom.” (1:6) Further, he was a “partaker” with them in that kingdom. (1:9) How could such have been, if the kingdom had been postponed?
(8) The existence of God’s kingdom on earth is further demonstrated by the fact that the same process which moves one into the kingdom also puts him into the church. Jesus taught that the “new birth,” consisting of being born of “water and the Spirit,” enables one to “enter the kingdom” (John 3:5). This is simply receiving the Spirit’s message (the gospel) and being baptized in water — the very thing which puts one into the “one body” (I Corinthians ), which is “the church” (Colossians ). Hence, to enter the church is equal to becoming a citizen of the kingdom. Thus, the doctrine that the kingdom was postponed because of the Jews’ rejection of Christ is totally false.
THE CHURCH – The claim that the church was set up as an “interim measure” due to Christ’s postponement of the kingdom, actually suggests the idea that the church is but an accident which was no part of God’s original plan. One could scarcely over-exaggerate the error here. The Bible clearly teaches that “the manifold wisdom of God” is made known “through the church,” and this is “according to the eternal purpose (plan) which he purposed in Christ Jesus.” (Ephesians 3:10,11) Hence, the church was in God’s plan from eternity. Further, the death of Christ was known before the foundation of the world (I Peter , 20; Revelation 13:8), and the shed blood of that death “purchased the church.” (Acts ) If the death of Christ was thus known for ages, it is certain that the result of that death was likewise known, namely, the establishment of the church. Actually, the church is simply a body of baptized believers who have been saved from their past sins. (Acts 2:38; I Corinthians 12:13) The church is the saved! (Ephesians 5:23) If the church is but an accident, that implies an accidental salvation! That the church was a part of God’s original plan for human redemption is further seen in the types of the Mosaic age. The tabernacle (specifically the holy place) and subsequently the temple, were types of the church (I Corinthians ; Ephesians ; Hebrews 9:9), and therefore pictured its future establishment and its integral part in the plan of Jehovah.
The doctrine of premillennialism
dogmatically asserts that God unconditionally promised
THE PROMISE TO ABRAHAM — Concerning
First of all, when the Law of Moses
was given, provision was made for the establishment of cities of refuge where
the manslayer who had killed without premeditation might flee for the
preservation of his life. Initially,
three cities were to be set aside for this purpose. Moses declared, however, that “if Jehovah thy God enlarge thy border, as he
hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised to
give unto thy fathers; if thou shalt keep all this commandment to do it, which
I command thee this day, to love Jehovah thy God, and to walk ever in his ways;
then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, besides these three...”
(Deuteronomy 19:7-9) Thus, SIX
cities of refuge would be evidence of the fulfillment of the land promise to
Abraham’s seed. A reading of Joshua 20:7, 8 reveals that the cities
of Kedesh, Shechem, Hebron,
Bezer, Ramoth and Golan
were assigned as havens of refuge — SIX cities — thus, “all the land” had been given; the land covenant has been
fulfilled! This is further demonstrated
by Joshua 21:43, “So Jehovah gave unto
contend however, that
The truth of the matter is, the OT clearly indicates that Israel’s possession of Palestine was conditioned upon their faithfulness to God — a condition which they repeatedly violated, hence, it was foretold: “When ye transgress the covenant of Jehovah your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods, and bow down yourselves to them; then will the anger of Jehovah be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he bath given Unto you.” (Joshua 23:16) That time eventually came and the Jews lost their “deed” to the Promised Land!
JEREMIAH’S VISUAL AID — In the 19th
chapter of his book, the prophet Jeremiah is instructed of Jehovah, “Go, and buy a potter’s earthen bottle.” Subsequently, he is told to go to the
THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF CHRIST — Further
confirmation of the above evidence that national
RESTORATION ‘PROOF TEXTS’ — The
premillennialist purports to have a whole repertoire of proof texts to
substantiate his claim of
1. Isaiah 2:2-4 — It is argued that this
passage will be fulfilled with the establishment of the
2. Isaiah 11:1-16 — This is a prophecy
regarding Christ (1-5), and the
establishment of his divine government in the church. Again, the peaceful atmosphere thereof is
beautifully described (6-9), as
being in God’s “
3. Hosea 2:14-23; 3:5 —
Hosea’s prophecies are frequently said to point to
This is another indication that the Christian era, the reign of Christ, is in view. (Cf. Luke 1:32, 33; Acts -36; , 17) (See Laetsch, Minor Prophets, p. 40.)
4. Amos 9:11-15 — This is a favorite of the premillennialists, but to no avail, it is argued that the re building of the “tabernacle of David” refers to the restoration of national Judaism in the Millennium, at which time Solomon’s temple will literally be rebuilt and the Jewish economy reinstated. In Acts 15 a question was raised among the early disciples as to whether Gentiles were obligated to circumcision. Peter, who had preached first to the Gentiles, denied such. James utters an inspired oracle corroborating Peter, and in connection, he cites the words of Amos concerning the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David. The rebuilding of David’s tabernacle was the enthronement of Christ and the establishment of his church! And a part of this design was that the Gentiles might have the privilege of seeking the Lord. It would thus follow, if the tabernacle of David is yet in the future, as premillennialists contend, then all Gentiles are still lost! (Acts , 17) Also, the claim that Judaism will someday be restored, in view of the books of Galatians and Hebrews, is absolutely incredible!
5. There are, of course, many additional prophecies which,
according to the premillennialists, predict
The theory of premillennialism
holds that Christ will return to this earth to be seated on the literal throne
of David in
THE THRONE OF DAVID — Isaiah prophesied that Christ would be heir to the throne of David. Says he, “Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even forever.” (Isaiah 9:7) Additionally, the angel Gabriel informed Mary concerning her expected Son, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1:32, 33) The question is not whether Christ was to sit on the throne of David; the controversy is concerning the nature of that throne, that is, is it the physical throne? Or is it the spiritual throne of David?
That Christ’s reign on the throne of David is of a heavenly, spiritual nature is manifestly evident from the following considerations.
1. The last king to reign on the Davidic throne of the OT era was
Jehoiachin (also known as Jeconiah, or abbreviated, Coniah). In Jeremiah 22:24-30 it was prophesied
that he and his seed (
2. The prophet Zechariah prophesied regarding the Christ thusly: “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build the temple of Jehovah; even he shall build the temple of Jehovah; and he shall bear the glory, and he shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” (Zechariah 6:12, 13) This passage positively affirms that Christ will function as priest and reign as king on his throne simultaneously. According to Hebrews 8:4 Christ could not act as a priest while on the earth for he was not descended from the priestly tribe (Hebrews ). Since the Lord could not be a priest on earth, and since he is priest and king jointly, it necessarily follows that his reign as king cannot be earthly in nature. Rather it is heavenly. The heavenly nature of the reign of Christ is readily apparent in that narrative known as the parable of the pounds recorded in Luke 19:11-27. The parable involves a certain nobleman (Christ) who went into a far country (heaven) to receive a kingdom, and to return. Some citizens, however, sent a message to him, saying, “We will not that this man reign over us.”
having received the kingdom, the nobleman returns to render judgment. From this account it is perfectly clear that:
(1) the kingdom was received in heaven (not on earth); (2) the reign was from
heaven (not from
3. King David was informed by the prophet Nathan: “When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.” (II Samuel 7:12, 13) That this is a prediction of the reign of Christ upon David’s throne is beyond question. In view of this promise David was told: “thy throne shall be established for ever.” (II Samuel 7:16) (Note the application of this context to Christ by an inspired NT writer in Hebrews 1:5.) It is extremely significant to note in this connection that Christ is to be seated on David’s throne over his kingdom while this illustrious OT king is still asleep with the fathers (i.e., in the grave)! In glaring contrast to this is the premillennial notion which contends that Christ will sit upon David’s throne after the resurrection of all the righteous (including David)!
4. In harmony with the foregoing is Peter’s declaration: “Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants upon his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ . . ?” (Acts 2:29-30, N.A.S.V.) Of special importance here is the infinitive “to seat,” suggesting the design of Christ’s resurrection, as N. B. Hardeman so wonderfully expressed it: “grammatically, ‘to sit’ is an infinitive with the construction of an adverb, carrying the idea of purpose equivalent to the following expanded form, viz.; He raised up Christ that He should sit, that He might sit, for the purpose of sitting upon David’s throne. If Christ is not on David’s throne, the resurrection might have been deferred until this good hour, or for ages yet to come.” (Tabernacle Sermons, III, p. 37)
5. The reign of Christ on David’s throne is not an event awaiting future fulfillment. The Son of God has been reigning over his kingdom since the day of Pentecost. Hear his promise to early saints: “He that over cometh, I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father in his throne.” (Revelation 3:21) Notice the past tense “sat down.” Clearly, Christ is now on the throne. If it be contended that this passage speaks of Christ on the Father’s throne and not David’s, it need only be replied that the Father’s throne and David’s are biblically the same. Solomon sat upon the throne of David (I Kings ), which was in reality Jehovah’s throne (I Chronicles 29:23). Hence, when Christ sat down on the Father’s throne, he was on the throne of David! He is presently reigning and will continue such until all his enemies are destroyed, the last of which will be death. (I Corinthians 15:25, 26)
Thus, to speak of Christ on David’s throne is simply to affirm that our Lord has “all authority;” that to him has been given “all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion” (Ephesians 1:21), indeed, that he exercises a regal reign characteristic of the great King that he is. (Compare Matthew 23:1 where the authority of the scribes and Pharisees who taught the Law is said to be sitting on “Moses’ seat.”)
Based primarily upon a misunderstanding of Revelation 20:1-6 (to be discussed later) premillennialists urge that there will be two resurrections of the dead. The first will occur at the time of Christ’s coming and will consist of the righteous only. Following this, it is contended, will be the 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth. Terminating this will be the second resurrection (of the wicked) and the judgment. There is no real support for this view; in fact, it contradicts numerous verses of clearest meaning. The Scriptures teach that when the Lord Jesus comes: (a) time will end; (b) all of the dead will be raised at the same time; (c) the judgment will occur; (d) eternity will commence.
THE END — In I Corinthians Paul speaks of the “coming” of Christ. With reference to that event, he says, “Then cometh the end . . .“ (24). It is obvious that the return of Christ is not to begin an earthly reign; rather, it will bring an end to earthly affairs! Some contend that the adverb “then” (Greek. eita) demands an interval which allows time for a millennium. Such is not the case, however. Note the use of eita in connection with eutheos (immediately) in Mark 4:17. Noted scholar Wick Broomall declares, “The usage of eita shows conclusively that the premillennial view is erroneous.”
THE DAY — Jesus spoke of “the
day” in which he would be revealed (i.e., the day of his coming). In presenting this truth, the Lord referred
to two divine destructions of former ages. (Luke 17:26-30) Observe that
on “the day” that Noah entered
the ark, the antediluvian world was destroyed.
Further, in “the day” that
THE HOUR — “Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28, 29) This passage thoroughly negates the “two resurrections” theory. Professor David Brown wrote, “It is hardly possible to conceive a plainer statement of the simultaneousness of the resurrection of both classes.” (Christ’s Second Coming, p. 190) See also Acts 24:15 where Paul makes it clear that there “shall be a resurrection (singular) both of the just and unjust.” Thus, a single resurrection involving two classes.
Certainly there are contexts in which only the resurrection of the righteous is under consideration (Cf. John ; II Thessalonians -18, etc.), but these do not cancel the plain force of verses affirming a general resurrection. Additionally, the symbolic language of the Book of Revelation (20:1-6) must be brought into harmony with these literal NT declarations of the coming of Christ, the resurrection and the judgment. It is most definitely not a sound hermeneutical principle to force numerous in obscure verses into harmony with a solitary symbolic reference.
The twentieth chapter of the Book of Revelation, verses one through six, is the very heart and soul of the theory of premillennialism. It is what George Murray calls “the very citadel and bulwark of premillennial eschatology.” (Millennial Studies, p. 175.) Indeed it may be said, were it not for these half dozen verses, the theory would not even have a semblance of suggestion in the New Testament. As Albert Barnes observes: “It is admitted, on all hands, that this doctrine, if contained in the Scriptures at all, is found in this one passage only. It is not pretended that there is, in any other place, a direct affirmation that this will literally occur, nor would the advocates for that opinion undertake to show that it is fairly implied in any other part of the Bible. But it is strange, not to say improbable, that the doctrine of the literal resurrection of the righteous, a thousand years before the wicked, should be announced in one passage only.” (Commentary on Revelation, pp. 428, 429)
Earlier it was stressed that it is foolish to attempt a forced harmony between the figurative elements of Revelation 20:1-6 and the premillennial theory, the latter being contradicted by so many plain passages of scripture. Making this very point with reference to Revelation 20:1-6, noted scholar Charles Hodge wrote:
“It is a sound rule in the interpretation of Scripture that obscure passages should be so explained as to make them agree with those that are plain. It is unreasonable to make the symbolic and figurative language of prophecy and poetry the rule by which to explain the simple didactic prose language of the Bible. It is no less unreasonable that a multitude of passages should be taken out of their natural sense to make them accord with a single passage of doubtful import.” (Systematic Theology, HI, p. 842) Finally, note this significant quotation from Geerhardus Vos concerning the relationship of the Book of Revelation to the premillennial view. “In regard to a book so enigmatical, it were presumptuous to speak with any degree of dogmatism, but the uniform absence of the idea of the millennium from the eschatological teaching of the NT elsewhere ought to render the exegete cautious before affirming its presence here.” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, II, p. 987)
PURPOSE AND FORM -- Preliminary to this discussion should be a few observations concerning the purpose and form of the Book of Revelation. The church of the apostolic age was being severely persecuted. Indeed in subsequent years, it was subjected to a veritable blood-bath. The design of Revelation is thus to show (a) The relatively infant church would be heir to much persecution and suffering; (b) The saints must persevere and by their faith overcome these trials; (c) The Christ would ultimately be victorious over all his enemies.
That the Book of Revelation is highly symbolic is evidenced not only by its content, but also by the introduction. Christ “signified” the message by his angel unto John. (1:1) The question naturally arises as to why the Lord chose symbols to be the vehicles of these truths. Symbolism frequently serves a two-fold purpose, to reveal and to conceal. Occasionally, the Lord’s parables functioned in this capacity, that is, they portrayed certain truths to the disciples, while withholding the same from those who were spiritually dull. (Cf. Matthew 13:10-15) The message of victory within the Book of Revelation, much of which was in the imagery that adorned the OT, with which Christians were undoubtedly familiar, would be grasped by those early disciples. At the same time, the defeat of the persecuting powers was veiled to those not discerning the figures. One can well imagine, for example, how trials for the Christians might have been intensified had they been discovered circulating a document which literally predicted the overthrow of their persecutors. And so, as George Ladd points out: “In the apocalypses, symbolism becomes the main stock in trade, particularly as a technique for outlining the course of history without employing historical names.” (Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 52) It is thus a gross error to literalize the Book of Revelation, and this is precisely what the premillennialists have done with the first six verses of chapter twenty.
THE SYMBOLS EMPLOYED—An examination of these first half-dozen verses of Revelation 20 evidences the following symbols: a key, a chain, a dragon or serpent, an abyss, a thousand years, thrones, a beast, marks on foreheads and hands, and a resurrection. It is certainly a strange interpretation which contends that a figurative serpent was bound with a figurative chain and thrown into a figurative abyss which was locked with a figurative key, to be confined for a literal thousand years! It ought to be manifestly obvious that no literal reign of Christ upon the earth is here alluded to. Even if one does not understand the specific design of the symbols, he can see the symbolic import of the thousand years.
SIGNIFICANT OMISSIONS — Perhaps this context is more significantly devastating to the premillennial theory for what it does not say, but which, if the theory be true, it surely would have mentioned. Nothing is said of: (a) Christ’s second coming; (b) the establishment of a kingdom; (c) an earthly regime; (d) a bodily reigning; (e) the throne of David; or (f) the Jews being re-gathered to Palestine. Now all of these elements are vitally important to the millennial view, yet they are conspicuously absent from this narrative!
THE GIST OF THE NARRATIVE — Obviously the context of Revelation 20:1-6 is a part of the design of the book as a whole. Many scholars believe that this section is a symbolic description of the revival of Christianity from a period of bloody persecution. For example, note that earlier (6:9-11) John had seen the “souls” of the martyrs “underneath the altar” crying, “How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” Here, however, the apostle views the “souls” on “thrones” reigning with Christ. For a while, Christianity appeared to have been buried in tribulation, but ultimately, it emerged; it was, figuratively speaking, resurrected. The Scripture speaks of figurative resurrections as well as literal ones. (See Isaiah 26:18; Ezekiel 37:12; Romans 11:15) “ It would, therefore, not be inconsistent with analogy of prophecy if we should understand the Apostle as here predicting that a new race of men were to arise filled with the spirit of the martyrs, and were to live and reign with Christ a thousand years.” (Hodge, op. Cit., p. 842) That this “resurrection” alludes to the triumphs of persecuted saints is further borne out by the fact that “the second death hath no power” over these reigning ones, which harmonizes perfectly with chapter 2, verse 11 — “He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.” Thus, the “resurrection” of 20:6 is a figurative way of saying “overcome.” The one thousand years, of course, would also be symbolic in scope, suggesting either that the victory of God’s cause as considered in this context would be lengthy in span, or possibly the one thousand years may denote the completeness of the saints’ triumph. For the figurative usage of numbers compare Exodus 20:6; Matthew 18:22; Revelation 5:11, etc.
At any rate, it is certain that there is no support for the theory of premillennialism — not in the Book of Revelation — not in the whole Bible. It is a false heresy.