Interpretations
of the Millennium*
REVELATION 20:1-7
[* From Appendix II of Daniel and the Latter Days by Robert D. Culver.]
Throughout this treatise I have sought to conserve the
reader’s time and to retain his interest by excluding discussion of matters
not precisely germane to the points under discussion.
Nevertheless, in the interests of fairness to opponents, and
in order to demonstrate more fully the truth of my proposition that “the Millennium is specifically (1) the period of time
between the resurrection of the just and of the unjust, and (2) the period of
Satan’s imprisonment” this appendix is added.
It becomes more evident, after examination of many treatments of Revelation 20: 1-7, that the literal
interpretation is self-evidently the only acceptable one.
And this is said with due respect to the names of many great men in the
field of Biblical exegesis who insist, on the contrary, that little or nothing
in these seven verses is to be taken literally - some of whom insist even that
there is no numerical notation in the entire Book of
Revelation which is to be taken literally.
It will not be convenient to classify the views of the “thousand years” or Millennium simply as
Postmillennial, Premillennial, or Amillennial. Nor will a division be made solely
between the figurative (or spiritual, tropical, metaphorical, or nonliteral)
and the literal interpretations, though, so far as the thousand years is
concerned, such a classification is feasible. The method to be followed will be to
classify the different views according to the specific interpretation given the
Greek words chilia etee, translated, “a thousand years” in the English versions. Then, in connection with each of these views
of the thousand years, the variations in interpretation of the details of the
prophecy will be added. I have excepted the Premillennial interpretation from treatment in
this appendix, inasmuch as this view is adopted and explained in the entire
book.
Without pretending to have exhausted the number of variations
of interpretation of the “thousand years” of Revelation 20, advocated since John wrote the words on
It would be a hopeless task to attempt exhaustive description
of every variation of a view.
Therefore the course followed will be to name, state, and describe each
view as set forth by its leading advocate or advocates. The effects of the view of the
interpretation of the rest of the passage will be presented also. Most of the refutation is reserved for a
brief treatment of the linguistic arguments at the close.
For want of any more descriptive term, I label the simplest,
and probably least acceptable, of all views as
1.
The Agnostic View.
The “thousand years”
are an unintelligible hieroglyph.
This view has been unconsciously adopted by the many preachers
and writers who either explicitly or implicitly pass by
the entire Book of Revelation as if it were totally incomprehensible. However, at least one has specifically
adopted this, in a formal way, as his view of the Millennium.
After surveying the Biblical support for the Chiliastic
doctrine, he admits that “there are ... passages,
which, if interpreted strictly and exclusively according to the letter, afford
some ground for the millenarian doctrine”
(art.
“Millenarianism, Millennium,” C. A. Semisch, Schaff-Herzog
Ency. of Rel.
Knowledge, third ed. revised and enlarged). He adds, “It
cannot be disputed that the Book of Revelation (20:
4 sqq.) contains the
fundamental characteristics of millenarianism.” Then, after rejecting the views of Hengstenberg and
of Augustine, he states his own view
as follows:
In
view of the difficulty of separating figure from real fact, we conclude that
the millenarianism of the Book of Revelation is a hieroglyph whose meaning has
not yet been satisfactorily solved (ibid.).
The writer recently heard a very learned gentleman from New
Zealand give a lecture* in which he asserted that probably
the Book of Revelation was a “cryptic letter”
from the “concentration camp” on Patmos, and that as read to the seven churches of Asia was furnished
with some sort of key to the symbols - a key which unfortunately, has been lost
and is probably beyond recovery. In
the lecture he did not apply this theory to the text now under consideration,
but it may be presumed that if the occasion arose he would do so. His view, probably shared by others,
seems to be essentially agnostic so far as the symbolism goes.
[* I have
since seen a small work by this writer, Mr.
E. M. Blaiklock, in which his view is rather
fully set forth (The Seven Churches, An Exposition
of Revelation, chapters two and three.
There is something to commend about this view. There is certainly more in the Book of
Revelation, and specifically in 20:1-7, that any one interpreter is likely to discover. Yet there is nothing essentially
esoteric or cryptic about the passage as it stands. The problems are no greater than those
which prevail in most apocalyptic and predictive sections of the Bible. It is not likely that many will care to
associate themselves permanently with Semisch’s agnosticism.
2. The Postmillennial
View:
The “thousand
years” are a literal period of time at the latter part of the
present age, to be terminated some time before the second advent of Christ.
An explanation must be offered quickly. Though all Postmillennialists agree that
the “thousand
years” of Revelation 20 refer to a literal period of time, they do not all agree that there will
necessarily be one thousand literal years of it. That is, some suppose that the “thousand years” stand figuratively for a long
period of time.
Postmillennialism is of comparatively recent origin. Several of the best advocates of the
view attribute its origin to Daniel
Whitby (1638-1726), an English Arminian theologian
who near the end of his life adopted Arian views of the Godhead. A.
H. Strong, for example (Systematic
Theology, 1014), writes: “Our own interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10, was first given, for
substance, by
The best known statement of the Postmillennial
position is probably that of A. A. Hodge
(Outlines of Theology, 450 ff).
With his customary force, skill, and brevity, Mr. Hodge has
presented the case as follows:
What is the Scriptural doctrine
concerning the millennium?
1st. The Scriptures, both of the Old and New
Testament, clearly reveal that the gospel is to exercise an influence over all
branches of the human family, immeasurably more extensive and more thoroughly
transforming than any it has ever realized in time past. This end is to be gradually attained
through the spiritual presence of Christ in the ordinary dispensation of
[* I have omitted Hodge’s lengthy list of Scripture
references.]
2nd. The period of this general prevalency
of the gospel will continue a thousand years, and is hence designated the
millennium.
3rd. The Jews are to be
converted to Christianity either at
the commencement or during the continuance of this period.
4th. At the end of these thousand years, and before the coming of
Christ, there will be a comparatively short season of apostasy and violent
conflict between the kingdoms of light and darkness.
5th. Christ’s
advent, the general resurrection and judgment, will be simultaneous, and
immediately succeeded by the burning of the old, and the revelation of the new
earth and heavens.
Hodge, then, seems to feel that the “one thousand years” are a literal period of one
thousand years, and that they will run their course in the latter portion of
this present age.
However, David Brown,
certainly the most voluminous writer in support of Postmillennialism, has taken
a slightly different view. He
writes:
One remark, however, I must request the reader to
bear in mind. ... I attach no
importance, in this argument, to the precise period of a thousand years.
It occurs nowhere in Scripture but in one solitary passage. There are reasons for taking it
definitely and literally; but to some these reasons appear slender. They think
it means just a long indefinite period; agreeing with us, however, as to its
being yet to come (The Second Advent, 27, 28).
There are variations
in the minor points among Postmillenarians but most
would agree on the general scheme of Hodge above. Another orthodox and scholarly advocate
of Postmillennialism was A. H. Strong. I cite his views as characteristic of
most orthodox Postmillennial doctrine.
The binding of Satan is presumably the restraint
put on the devil by the ultimate prevalence of Christianity throughout the
earth - when Jew and Gentile alike became possessed of Christianity’s
blessings (Systematic Theology, 1008).
The
first resurrection (Rev. 20: 4-6) is
not a preliminary resurrection of the body, in the case
of departed saints, but a period in the latter days of the church militant,
when, under special influence of the Holy Ghost, the spirit of the martyrs
shall appear again, true religion be generally quickened and revived, and the
members of Christ’s churches become so conscious of their strength in
Christ that they shall, to an extent unknown before, triumph over the powers of
evil both within and without (ibid. 1013).
The resurrection is only of “the
spirit of sacrifice and faith,” and the statement of Revelation 20: 5 that “the rest of the dead lived
not again until the thousand years should be finished” means only that the “spirit of persecution and unbeief
shall be, as it were, put to sleep” (ibid. 1013).
Strong feels that the release of Satan (Rev. 20: 7) for “a little season” indicates that
at the close of this
millennial period, evil will again be permitted to exert its utmost power in a
final conflict with righteousness.
This spiritual struggle, moreover, will be accompanied and symbolized by
political convulsions, and by fearful indications of desolation in the natural
world (ibid. 1009).
Thus the
“1ittle
season” is the
great tribulation period.
The destruction of Satan, Gog and Magog, the general resurrection and the general judgment of
the great white throne are held to be at the second advent. some time after
the close of the millennium.
It should be seen that Postmillennialists have not generally
held that the second advent closes the Millennium, for
by Strong’s view, the “little season” is said to intervene. It is after the Millennium - but
how long after is not declared.
It needs to be added that many advocates have felt that
neither the church nor the world may be conscious of either the beginning or
the close of the Millennium. Brown makes this clear:
Let no one suppose I expect that the beginning and
end of this period will be so clearly discernible as to leave no room for doubt
on any mind. On the contrary, I
think there can hardly be a doubt that it will follow the law of all Scripture
dates in this respect of Daniel's “seventy weeks,” and of the “twelve hundred and sixty
days” of
Antichristian rule. The beginning
and end of the former of these periods is even yet a matter of some
controversy, etc. (op. cit., 28).
The period during which Postmillennialism was at its height of
acceptance was the latter half of the nineteenth century and during the first
quarter of the present century. Among
the great theologians of this era, Strong,
C. A. Hodge, A. A. Hodge, C. A. Briggs
were Postmillennial. Postmillennial
writers of the more popular sort were Albert
Barnes (Commentaries on the New
Testament) and David Brown, to mention only a few. Snowden
(The Coming of the Lord, 1919) and Carroll (The Book of
Revelation, 1916) are among the most
recent thorough-going Postmillennial orthodox writers.
During the “golden age” of American Protestant Modernism,
which came to an end with World War II, Modernists adopted a kind of Postmillennialism
to which earlier advocates would have given no approval (e.g., Rall, Modern Premillennialism and the Christian
Hope). It was based more on the theory of
evolution and humanism than on any interpretation of the Bible, and need not
occupy our attention here. The present
heirs of Modernism, the Neo-orthodox and Neo-liberal people, are scarcely more
optimistic about the course of the present era than Premillenarians, and so are
not inclined to Postmillennialism.
Postmillennialism has no strong, vocal present-day advocates. But it is not likely that it is dead. It seems probable that any period of
prolonged peace in the world would provide the climate in which a revival of
Postmillennialism might take place.
3. Augustinian
Amillennialism:
The “thousand years”
are probably a literal designation of the length of the
present age, to be closed by the second advent of Christ. The reference is to the course of the
church on earth during this period.
Note the word “probably.”
I think Augustine would have approved the use of this word in this
connection. As will be seen, he had
a wholesome restraint in stating his views on some features of Bible prophecy
which could well continue to be emulated.
Augustine’s views on eschatology, among many other subjects,
are set forth in The City of God, the
result of thirteen years of labour (A.D. 413‑426). The part which relates to the Millennium
is Book XX, chapters 6 to 15. This
will be found in “The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series,” volume II, translated by Marcus Dods. It is safe to assert that until this
section of Augustine’s great work is mastered one cannot fully appreciate
the millennial discussions which have followed since his day. It is almost, if not wholly, true that
all Amillennial and Postmillennial systems have been postscripts to “The City of
Having just now read the entire section in “The City of
At any rate, he believed the whole present age to be in the
Millennium and that the termination of the present age and of the Millennium
would be approximately synchronous. It also appears that he followed the
Septuagint chronology (it is believed that he did not know Hebrew) and thought
the sixth thousand years of human history to be well in progress when the
present dispensation began. He also
evidently believed that at the end of six thousand years of history, Christ
would come again and end the current age (City
of
Later on, he makes it clear that he feels the Millennium
refers to the course of the church in the world, and the reign of saints to be
a present situation on earth, except insofar as the unity of the church living
and dead involves a secondary reference to the saints in heaven as well.
His basic position on the Millennium is clarified as he goes
on to give his views on the rest of Revelation 20.
“The first resurrection” (Rev. 20: 4 - 6) he
holds to be a spiritual resurrection - the same as that “resurrection” or “regeneration” described in John 5: 26, 27. It is the same as personal salvation. It is participated in only by the saved,
as he says, “in the first resurrection none have
a part save those who shall be eternally blessed” (Ibid. XX, 6).
The second resurrection described in Revelation
20 is a physical resurrection of all men, according to Augustine. He speaks of it as a resurrection “of judgment” (XX, 6) almost as a
Premillennialist, but he goes on to clarify his statement and show that he
means only that the saints, all of whom participate in spiritual regeneration
(first resurrection), shall not be “judged”
(damned) in this second or physical resurrection at the consummation, even
though they do participate in the resurrection.
He concludes:
So are there these two resurrections, - the one the
first and spiritual resurrection, which has place in this life, and preserves
us from coming into the second death; the other the second, which does not
occur now, but in the end of the world, and which by the last judgment shall
dismiss some into the second death, others into that life which has no death (ibid.
XX, 8).
On the binding of Satan, he asserts that it has regard to the
nations (as Rev. 20 says) but
that this means “no doubt, those among which the
church exists.” Later
he clarifies this to mean that Satan will not be able to seduce the elect of
the church militant. This binding
took place at the beginning of the present age when Christ first bound the “strong man” in order that he might “spoil his goods” (he cites Mark 3: 27). This binding he seems to conceive of as a
judicial act of God rather than of some specific historical event such as the
death of Christ, the founding of the church, the work of the first missionaries,
etc.
On the loosing of Satan, he writes that it refers to revived
ability of Satan to seduce the non elect of the church visible. He seems to relate the Biblical references
to a final great tribulation, the great apostasy, and the Antichrist to the “little season” during which Satan is to be
loosed. This he places at the end
of the present age but before the consummation (i.e., before the “general resurrection” judgment, etc. Ibid. XX, 8). He leaves the
problem as to whether the “little season” is within the one thousand years or immediately
afterward an open question (Ibid. XX, 13).
These are the main features of Augustine’s view. It bears repeating that his views are of
utmost importance to present-day millennial discussions, for about every orthodox
Amillennial or Postmillennial view since Augustine has embodied some of the
main features of his view. Indeed,
the very passages of Scripture which Augustine used in support of his arguments
appear often in contemporary amillennial literature.
To recapitulate the main features of Augustine’s view:
The thousand years is an expression, whether figurative or literal he is not
certain, standing for a literal period of time. The Millennium relates to the present age
- either this age is the Millennium or is contained in it; the present age and
the Millennium terminate approximately synchronously. The reign of the saints is during this
age and it is on earth through the appointed leaders (clergy, etc.) of the
visible church. The first
resurrection is spiritual and is the regeneration of the individual believers
whereby they become members of the body of Christ, that is, of the
It remains to be added that in the main Augustine’s view
is, and has been, the view of the Roman Catholic church.*
[* A footnote in the official Roman
Catholic Bible in English (The Holy Bible Douay‑Rheims Version) on Rev. 20: 3
reads: “... the souls of the martyrs and saints
live and reign with Christ in heaven, in the first resurrection, which is that
of the soul to the life of glory.”]
4. Modern
Amillennialism, the Modified
The “thousand years”
is a figurative expression designating the course of the present age from the
death of Christ to the second advent. The reference is to the reign of the
saints with Christ in heaven.
It will be seen at once that this is the Augustinian view with
one major change and a few minor ones, The major
change is that the reign of the saints in the Millennium is said to take place
in heaven rather than on earth, as in the view of Augustine. An important minor change is that recent
Amillennialists have clearly broken with the idea that the Millennium is to be
taken as a literal designation of a literal length of time. Instead of setting any particular date,
precise or approximate, for the end of the Millennium, the length of the
Millennium is simply conceived to be the length of the present age. Some adjustment of this kind was
inevitable in Amillennialism when once A.D. 1000 was passed.
An able contemporary representative of the school is Hendriksen,
whose views are set forth in a recent book (More
Than Conquerors, an Interpretation of the Book of Revelation). Following the “recapitulation” or “Parallelistic” method of interpreting
the Apocalypse he believes that with Revelation 20
the prophecy returns to the beginning of the present age. The “order
of events” has the following “sequence.”
He says, “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 Christ’s second coming, that is, His
coming unto judgment” (page 222). Concerning the binding of Satan, he
writes: “this work of binding the devil was
begun when our Lord triumphed over him in the temptations in the wilderness.”
Then, after citing and discussing Matthew 4: 1-11;
Luke 4: 1-13; Luke
10: 17, 18; John 12: 20-32; Colossians 2: 15; Revelation
12:5ff., he asserts that the “binding and
casting out or falling of Satan is ...
associated with the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
He feels that it consists of
reducing Satan’s power to keep the nations from the light of divine revelation
and the saving gospel - almost unrestricted till Jesus came. Satan has been so bound that Christ may,
in this age, draw men of every nation unto Himself (Ibid. in loco).
This school dissociates itself completely from the Postmillennial optimism which expects a kind of literal
Millennium in this age. Hendriksen makes it clear that he believes the
binding of Satan is only in certain limited respects. The imprisonment (or binding) has respect
to earth and living men; the reign of saints has respect to heaven and dead
believers.
The first resurrection is the “translation
of the soul from this sinful earth to
God’s holy heaven” at
the death of the believer (Hendriksen, ibid. in loco). The second resurrection is the
resurrection of the bodies of all men at the consummation.
The “1ittle season” during which Satan is loosed is related to a coming time of
apostasy, tribulation, etc., at the end of this age, and just before the
consummation.
Some of the recent writers who hold
this modified Augustinian view of the Millennium, though disagreeing somewhat
on details, are A. T. Allis, G. L. Murray, Floyd Hamilton, W. Hendriksen. There are many others whose expressions are
friendly to this view but who, to the knowledge of the present writer, have not
made published statements specifically upon interpretation of the “thousand years.”
5. Modern Amillennialism‑B.
B.
The “thousand years”
is a figurative expression signifying the “Intermediate
state.” It is a kind of literary figure of speech
whereby the present age is viewed from the standpoint of its enjoyment by the
dead saints in glory.
Warfield’s views are set forth in the last
chapter of a posthumous collection of his writings entitled, Biblical Doctrines. On account of his importance in
twentieth century theology, and because there are some distinct features in his
Amillennialism, his view deserves special classification. I have called Warfield an Amillennialist
because he denies any connection of the “thousand years” with a reign of Christ or His saints on earth,
either after Christ’s second coming or before it. It may be true, as former students of his
classes have told me, that he regarded himself as a Postmillennialist.
While his theories are ingenious, they are not
convincing. I know of no prominent
writer who has heartily endorsed and adopted his views of Revelation 20. A system such as his which makes both a “little season” and “a thousand years” stand for the present age is
not impressive to most minds. Likewise, having declared that the one thousand
years stand for the condition of the disembodied saints in glory [‘the
intermediate state’], he presently has the same expression
stand for the duration of the present age also. Except that this view was expressed by a
noted scholar, whose expositions of Christian doctrine in some other areas are
justly famous, it is doubtful that his view of the Millennium would have made
any impression on the Christian public.
6. Modern Amillennialism
-
The “thousand years”
is a figurative designation of the idea of completeness or perfection. This perfection has reference to the
salvation of the saints in their present state on earth, and to the present
binding of Satan.
Milligan’s views are rather well known and
generally highly regarded even among those who disagree with him. The fact that he is the writer on
Revelation in the commentary on the Scriptures known as The Expositor’s Bible has served to give his views great
currency. His views were adopted by
A. Plummer, who cites and quotes
Milligan at some length in his exposition of the Book of Revelation in the
commentary set known as The Pulpit
Commentary. It should be noted
that in The Expositor’s Bible Milligan
presents his view as suggestive rather than dogmatic. His words are as follows:
The thousand years mentioned in the passage express
no period of time. They are not a
figure for the whole Christian era, now extending to nearly nineteen hundred
years. Nor do they denote a certain
space of time, longer or shorter, it may be, than the definite number of years
spoken of, at the close of the present dispensation, and to be in the view of
some preceded, in the view of others followed, by the second Advent of our
Lord. They embody an idea; and that
idea whether applied to the subjugation of Satan or to the triumph of the
saints is the idea of completeness or perfection. Satan is bound for a thousand years, that
is, he is completely bound. The saints reign for a thousand years, that is, they are
introduced into a state of perfect and glorious victory (The
Expositor’s Bible, Revelation, 913).
Like Warfield, Milligan feels that the “1ittle season” is the whole Christian age,
when, as regards the nations, Satan is loosed. This is quite contrary to the more common
Amillennial view that during this period he is bound as regards the nations. With minor differences, Milligan’s
views on other details are pretty much the same as the common Amillennial view.
7. Modern Amillennialism
-
The “thousand years”
is a figurative expression signifying (according to Swete) “a great epoch in human history.” The reign of saints has reference to the
triumph of Christianity which began with the victory of the church over
paganism in the
This view was advocated notably by Henry Barclay Swete (The Apocalypse of St. John, second ed., 1907) and more recently
in this country by Albertus Pieters (Studies in the Revelation of St. John, 1943,
1950) among orthodox scholars.
Most of our contemporary Amillennialists draw a sharp break
between chapters
19 and
20, but, like the Premillennialists, the
advocates of the Preterist View recognize that the first
resurrection, the binding of Satan, and the one thousand years follow the
defeat of Antichrist related in chapter 19. In respect to most of the details of the prophecy the views
are similar to the Postmillennial scheme. Details of interpretation are very
similar to those of David Brown and B. H. Carroll, Postmillennialists. In fact, except that this system finds
the fulfilment of the prophecy of the binding of Satan and the first resurrection
in the past, it would have to be called Postmillennial.
Swete
thinks that the Millennium began with the break-up of the Beast (“Roman world power”) and the False Prophet (“pagan system of priestcraft and superstition”).
This is followed by a long period
of “Christian supremacy during which the faith
for which the martyrs died would live and reign.” The war with Gog
and Magog to follow is the recrudescence of evil at
the end of the present age (op. cit., 266).
“The binding of Satan is the
divine restraint put upon the devil so that he was unable any longer to ‘deceive the nations,’ that
is, to bring about a restoration of that paganism” (Pieters, op. cit.,
307).
“The three and a half years
stand for the period of struggle with paganism, and the thousand years for the
succeeding period of uninterrupted triumph of Christianity over it”
(ibid. 307).
To my mind, this is the most satisfactory of all views, except
the Premillennial interpretation. It has the least inconsistency and has
regard to the place of Revelation 20 in the order of events in the Book of Revelation.
Yet it has in it all the weaknesses of the
various varieties of the Augustinian view, and for that reason is to be
rejected.
In concluding this survey, let it be observed that all of these views reject the
possibility of a future reign on earth of Christ and/or His saints lasting one
thousand years. It bears
repetition that many advocates of these views admit that, taken literally, the
chapter does teach such a doctrine. Let it be observed also that even though
some of those described accept a literal meaning for “one thousand years,” not one of them attempts an interpretation which could be called
“literal.” No one, of course, feels that every last
word is to be taken literally. The “key” and “chain” of verse
1 are self-evidently figures of some kind. So, as Dr. Albertus Pieters
says:
… the most prominent
line of cleavage among interpreters is between those who, with due allowance
for figures of speech, take the vision literally, and those who consider it a
symbol. The former see here a
description of events that must come to pass substantially as written, at some
future time: The latter understand it to be a symbolical presentation of some
spiritual truth, or of events that happened long ago (op. cit., 282).
Thus, with allowance for some oversimplification, it can be
said that on the one side are the nonliteral or symbolical interpretations and
on the other the literal interpretations. Some Post and Amillennial writers have
held to a literal one thousand years, while holding to a figurative interpretation
of the remainder of the details, and for that reason must be classed as
advocates of a figurative interpretation.
Most of the really significant arguments against the literal
interpretation and in favour of various figurative ones relate to five expressions
in the passage before us. Besides
these, there are numerous subsidiary arguments, given different emphasis by
different writers. However, these
five, which are generally supposed to find foundation in the language of the
passage, appear over and over again in the literature on the subject. These must now be treated briefly.
1. The use of the word “soul”
(psyche) in Revelation
20:4:
John writes that following his vision of
the binding of Satan he “saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given unto
them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus,
and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his
image, neither had received his mark on their foreheads, or in their hands; and
they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” (Rev. 20: 4).
Many of the Amillennial writers argue from the use of the word
“soul” as does
... the first resurrection is the new birth
which reaches its culmination and consummation when the soul of the believer
leaves the body and goes to reign with
Christ in heaven. The
deliberate choice of the word “soul,” which almost universally means soul as distinct from the body, as
applying to the believers now [supposedly] reigning with, Christ in glory, seems to make it plain that the first
resurrection is just that (The Basis of
Millennial Faith, 132).
The answer to this will not be in denial that the word “souls” does probably refer to disembodied souls. The obvious connection
with Revelation 6: 9-11 where disembodied
souls is clearly meant, makes it very likely that the same is meant
here. Rather, the answer will be
found in determination of the relationship of these “souls” to the group who are said to
have “lived
and reigned.”
Observe that whoever the “souls” are, the ones of whom it is said at the end of verse 4, “they lived and reigned with
Christ a thousand years,”
are obviously the same persons of whom John says in the beginning of verse 4, “I saw thrones and they sat
on them, and judgment was given unto them.” Who are
these? Who are the ones entered as
subject of the verb ekathisan (they sat) and who must be the
antecedent of the pronoun autois (unto them)? They are not the devil (20: 2) or the angel (20: 1) or the slain beasts and their armies
(19: 19-21). They can hardly be other than those
described in 19: 14 as follows: “the armies which are in
heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and pure.”* Commentators unite in recognizing these as the
redeemed of the ages. The clear
necessity for some antecedent to the pronominal subject of the first verb, and
to the pronoun “them”
in verse 4, is the reason why the “recapitulation” theory cannot be adduced to
make a break between chapters 19 and 20. So whoever the “souls” are, they are certainly not
the total of participants in the first resurrection. They are mentioned only by way of
eminence, to show the fulfilment of their prayer for deliverance and vindication
before their enemies (6: 10).
[* Are there no angelic creatures in God’s
army? Is it not the angels who accompany
Christ at the time of His return, and who root out of His kingdom all who do
iniquity? And when do the ‘dead in Christ’ arise from the underworld, if
not at the time of His descent to this
earth?]
This argument is not only without force but easily becomes an
occasion for a true understanding of a better explanation of the Book of
Revelation.
2. The use of “resurrection” (anastasis) [and an understanding of what happens]
in Revelation
20: 5:
After relating the events above, John adds that “the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished” and then, evidently referring
to those before who “lived and reigned with Christ,” says, “This is the first resurrection” (Rev. 20: 5).
Now, say those who interpret figuratively, this resurrection
is that of the soul spiritually dead in trespasses and sins unto spiritual life
in Christ, that is, the first resurrection is essentially the new birth,
followed by spiritual exaltation with Christ at death.
This argument is discussed on pages 32 and 33. This much only I add
here. The word anastasis
(resurrection) is never elsewhere in the New Testament used of anything except
physical resurrection, except Luke 2: 34, in which the context furnishes another meaning. The word appears forty-two times in the
New Testament. Of the thirty-nine
appearances outside this chapter thirty-eight
have clear reference to physical resurrection. It will surely require overwhelming
evidence to establish spiritual resurrection as the meaning of the word anastasis in Revelation 20. A few who accept the literal physical
resurrection view suppose that John described a physical resurrection but
intended it as a symbol of a spiritual resurrection. But the burden of proof rests with these.
If this view is taken, the argument
will have to be supplied from some source other than the idea of resurrection
or the word anastasis.
3. The binding of Satan in Revelation 20:
Amillennialists point out that Satan had deceived all the
nations, except
The Amillennialists’ basic text in explaining the
binding of Satan described in Revelation 20, and in equating it to these historical facts, has been Mark 3: 27 (see page 199). Other passages speak of Satan’s “falling” (Luke 10: 17, 18), his being “cast out” (John
12: 31), of Christ’s “despoiling”
Satan (Col.
2:15). All these are properly associated with
the first coming of Christ. Thus
the reasoning is, to use the words of Hendriksen:
Hence, in close harmony with all these Scriptural
passages - and our exegesis must always be based upon the
analogy of Scripture! - we conclude that also here in Rev. 20: 1-3 the binding of Satan and
the fact that he is hurled into the abyss to remain there for a thousand years
indicates that throughout this present Gospel Age, which begins with Christ’s
first coming and extends nearly to the second coming, the devil’s
influence on earth is curtailed so that he is unable to prevent the extension
of the church among the nations by means of an active missionary program (op. cit., 226).
It must be readily admitted that the analogy of Scripture
cannot be ignored in interpretation. However, it has a limited bearing on
interpretation. For example, the “lion of the tribe of
4. The statement that “they ...
reigned with Christ” (Rev.
20: 4):
Those who adopt a symbolical interpretation of these words
claim that the Scriptures speak of the reign of the saints with Christ as
prevailing now, not in the future after Christ’s second coming. Passages frequently cited are Romans 5: 21 (“even so might grace reign
through righteousness unto eternal life”), which is thought to make that eternal life in Christ
the one and only reign of the saints, and 2 Timothy 2: 12, 1 Peter 2: 9, and Colossians 1: 17.
My comment and answer must be brief - and I do not intend to
be curt. Certainly there is such a
present relationship with Christ as “reigning with him” which does exist. But that does not prove that such was
what John was talking about. As
noted elsewhere in this book, I do recognize that there is an important sense
in which the saints of this age do now participate in Christ’s present
kingdom. That
this is the precise equivalent of the reign of the saints in Revelation 20, or in the numerous
passages in the Old Testament (vide. Dan. 7:14, 22, 27) in which the saints of God are promised universal and
eternal dominion must be specifically denied (see my comments on Daniel 7 herein). There
is nothing in Revelation 20 or elsewhere which requires such a view.
5. The statement that “they lived
(ezesan) ... with
Christ”:
It has been frequently pointed out by those who interpret this
passage in a figurative way that the word “lived” is a form of the Greek word zao, which means “to live”
rather than to be resurrected or to live again. Such being the case, it is argued that
the word is very fitting for spiritual exaltation rather than physical
resurrection. Barnes (Commentary, in loco) argues at length for a spiritual
significance for the word, as do others.
It must be readily admitted that the Greek word does sometimes,
even in the book of Revelation, have such a meaning, for example, “Thou hast a name that thou
livest and art dead”
(Rev. 3: 1). The same may be true of the same word in Revelation 7: 17, and some think also in 13: 14. Yet in other passages physical life is
meant (e.g., Rev.
19: 20; 16: 3). So, as far
as the general use of the word is concerned, it may be used either of physical
or of spiritual life.
In my opinion, both literal and symbolical interpreters have
generally erred in treating this word. The evidence does not prove (as some
Premillennialists think) that the word means to live again. When Jesus spoke of the impartation
of eternal life (“and they that hear shall live,” John 5: 25), He used this word. But He did not mean “live again,” for natural men have never been
alive spiritually. He meant that
they would come into possession of spiritual life. It might be better to say that the state
of being alive came to pass for them. Thus the word essentially means to be
alive, not to become alive. If this
were not the case, John would not write, using the same word with achri “again,” that “the rest of the dead lived not again” (Rev. 20: 5).
Now, in Revelation 20, John sees the hosts who return
with the Son of God alive and
reigning with Christ.* It is true that he makes no reference to
their “becoming alive.” It makes no
difference that he did not; it is necessary that a resurrection shall have
taken place, as the statement in verse five that certain others [now in Hades], in contrast with these “lived not again” until after the Millennium,
shows. And, in the case of the
martyrs at least, beheaded and dead, resurrection would be necessary (see following) .
[*The
ones who return with Christ, must be those who were “able to escape,” and “to stand before the Son of Man” (Luke 21: 36, N.I.V.) - (in heaven, presumably) - before
the Great Tribulation events set in by being rapt alive into heaven.]
Consider also that where a bit later it is said that “the rest of the dead lived
not again” until
after the Millennium that physical resurrection is necessarily understood. They are the wicked* dead, and hence spiritually as well as physically
dead. Since they never had
spiritual life, they can not be said to live “again” spiritually.
[* Not necessarily all who are without spiritual life.
See 1 Cor. 5: 13. cf. Mark 13: 12; Num. 16: 25.]
So, though the word ezesan (they lived) does not specify resurrection of the
body, it certainly does not militate against it.
The following facts may be admitted to show that the resurrection
of the bodies [and souls] of the righteous dead is involved in verse 4.
(1) ezesan (they lived) is a form of the word that is used
at least twice in the Revelation of our Lord in His resurrection body – “I am he that liveth, and was
dead; and behold I am alive forevermore” (Rev. 1: 18, cf. also 2: 8). (2) In each of these cases the word ezesan is
parallel with the expression in Greek “became
dead” (egeneto [or
egenouen] nekros), which
suggests that His being alive was the result of “becoming”
also. (3) Most importantly, what “they” who live and reign do is “with Christ” and presumably in the same sense. In
the same sense that Christ is alive, they are alive. In His case it is in the resurrection
body, and, therefore, in their case the same. All recognize that resurrection of the
body is eschatological. We may
expect that the events of this verse, then, are likewise eschatological. There
are other arguments used by those who reject the literal interpretation - some
rational, some Biblical. It is beyond
the scope of this effort to treat them more than they have been treated in the
main body of the book. With this,
therefore, I close.
-------