# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1857_S382
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

[p. 382]

[continuing from the previous page] ...-nation founded on illumination of the
Holy Spirit, possess an explanation and exposition of this last prophetic
book, we can regard all interpretations of it, taken as a whole, as nothing
but mere opinions — though we gladly grant them standing when they agree
with the faith. We are far from wishing to set aside or deny even one iota
of what is written in Revelation 20. We hold it to be assuredly true and
divine, though not yet become doubtlessly clear to us. But even if not
everything in it has been fully disclosed to us, we are nevertheless quite
capable of testing any interpretation of it. And whatever interpretation
does not agree with the analogy of faith, that we recognize with unquestion-
able certainty to be false.

Where, then, in Revelation 20 is there a single word that teaches, with
irrefutable certainty, a twofold visible second coming of Christ, a twofold
bodily resurrection, a thousand-year glorious kingdom of Christ on earth?
One may read through this chapter — so often mishandled — as often as one
likes; one will not find a single word in it that unambiguously expresses
that stated meaning. That Satan is to be bound for a thousand years is
clear; but that no absolute binding is meant is equally clear from the
qualification attached: "that he should deceive the nations no more" —
namely, according to verse 8, "to gather them together to battle against
the camp of the saints and the beloved city" — that is, not that he should no longer tempt
anyone to sin and unbelief in general. And as for Christians, whom Satan
also seeks to deceive, and often truly does deceive, there is no mention of
them at all — not a syllable. Or let someone say where there is. In fact,
this twentieth chapter of Revelation says nothing at all, up through verse 8
(that is, to the end of the thousand years) — a point that is always
overlooked — about the church on earth, though everything here would
depend on exactly that. Let someone show us such a word! But if anyone
wishes to read the whole visible church on earth into this mysterious
description of events in the kingdom of God, which are still obscure to us
at this time, then we ask: by what right? *Sensus scripturae sacrae non
est inferendus, sed efferendus* — that is, the meaning of Holy Scripture
is not to be carried into it but carried out of it — an old rule of
scriptural interpretation, still valid today. We therefore keep asking,
again and again, the one question: "Where does it say so?" — Further, it
is of course undeniable that verse 5 speaks of a "first resurrection"; but
what kind of resurrection is meant by this, and in what sense it is called
the first, cannot be decided from this passage alone. This much only is
certain and beyond all doubt: a bodily resurrection cannot be meant by it,
because it expressly says: "And I saw the souls of them that were
beheaded; these lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." For
although Holy Scripture does use the word "souls" for whole persons — for
example, Deut. 24:7: "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of
the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him,"
and so on; Gen. 46:15: "These are the sons of Leah — thirty-three souls"
— yet when, as here, it adds to the word "souls" the persons to whom
they belong, it obviously cannot thereby mean the whole person, but only
the one part of it. For example: "Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be
required of thee," Luke 12:20. Or: "his soul is in him," Acts 20:10.
(Compare: "The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no
torment shall touch them," Wisdom 3:1.) With which...