Bro, these are biblical generalities. Scripture makes clear that the redeemed were, are and always will be (till Jesus comes to usher in the NHNE) a small minority on this earth. Even in Israel, there was only (and always) a small faithful remnant.
Just like blindness and darkness are attributed to the Gentiles (without qualification) prior to the cross, it didn’t mean that every single Gentile was blind and in darkness. Scripture often described the Gentiles as a collective whole. That did not mean the Gentiles were all the same. Scripture, like us, makes generalities. Prior to Christ’s earthly ministry the heathen nations were viewed as being in wholesale ignorant and therefore outside of God’s plan of salvation. Could I suggest this was simply a general observation about the overall condition of the Gentiles as a broad mass, not an attempt to represent every single Gentile?
If we were to take many of the sweeping general statements re the blindness and darkness of the Gentiles in the OT hyper-literally it would negate the salvation of Abel, Noah, Abraham, Ruth (Ruth 1:16), the widow women of Zarephath that entertained Elijah (1 Kings 17:24), Rahab the harlot and “all her kindred” (Joshua 6:23-25), Naaman (2 Kings 5:15), the Queen of Sheba (Matthew 12:42), and the inhabitants of the Gentile city of Ninevah (Jonah 3:5). Were these not Gentiles? Where these not “God's people”? The fact is this general assertion did not apply to every single Gentile. Likewise, when Scripture speak about the enlightenment of the Gentiles and the removal of the deception it doesn’t mean that every Gentile will be saved, but that the Gospel message and opportunity would be extended to them as a whole – just like Israel experienced in the Old Testament.
Let me illustrate.
In Matthew 12 we see the religious Jews rejecting Christ. Matthew 12:14-22 records, “Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; And charged them that they should not make him known: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust. Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.”
Christ’s rejection by his own house (Israel) saw Him turn to the Gentiles and the formerly outcast. He was now going to invade the devil’s house and acquire a spoil. Immediately after the Jews turned on Him in this story He delivers one of Satan’s household – a demon possessed man – thus illustrating that there was a darkened people out there that would come to faith in Christ. He used this man who belonged to the devil’s own house (kingdom) to impress the direction of the Gospel from hereon. Now, my main point is this: this reading expressly declares “in his name shall the Gentiles trust.” Using the Premil argument: all the Gentiles must trust, or this cannot apply today. What I am saying is, if you were to apply this argument namely that the fact that the vast bulk of Gentiles still remain deceived is evidence why we can’t be in the millennium now then we must (if we are consistent) apply the same rule to this statement to show that it can’t be relevant to today. It cannot relate to the here-and-now because the majority of Gentiles still don’t trust God. Of course that would be preposterous. Such a statement is a general reference to the removal of the veil deceiving the Gentiles as a whole after the cross.
Paul draws several of the Old Testament prophecies, relating to the removing of this global deception upon the ethnos, together in Romans 15:8-12 and shows how this began with the life, death and resurrection of Christ and the subsequent evangelism of the early Church. He declares, “Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: And that the [Gr. ethnos] Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written (in 1 Samuel 22:50), For this cause I will confess to thee among the [Gr. ethnos] Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. And again he saith (in Psalm 18:49), Rejoice, ye [Gr. ethnos] Gentiles, with his people. And again (in Deuteronomy 32:43), Praise the Lord, all ye [Gr. ethnos] Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. And again (in Isaiah 11:10), Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the [Gr. ethnos] Gentiles; in him shall the [Gr. ethnos] Gentiles trust.”
The Old Testament writers predicted that there was a time coming when the Gentiles would accept Christ, glorify His name and trust Him. Now, here is an important question. Did all the Gentiles surrender to Him? Using the Premil argument on Rev 20:2 they must. After all, this reading makes a blanket statement they would believe, without qualification. Indeed, did that mean that the majority of Gentiles would do so? Of course not. Did that mean that the majority of Gentile nations would turn to God? Of course not. Did that mean that the majority of Gentiles would turn from heathenism? Of course not. This was talking about the general enlightenment of the Gentiles.
I personally believe, Premil places a meaning on Revelation 20 which is unsustainable if you apply it to countless other simpler passages in Scripture. Their interpretation of Revelation is out of kilter with the various readings above.
Satan was spiritually bound in chains in order to facilitate the spread of the Gospel to his territory. No other meaning enjoys scriptural corroboration.