Think Wink.

Today I turn to the last section of this incredible passage in John’s revelation of Jesus Christ, Revelation 20:4-6. This is where the whole crux of the matter is located. In here one word, that appears twice in the text, determines whether or not my interpretation of the binding is what John had in mind when he wrote it. George Eldon Ladd writes, “If we can find and answer to this question [how to interpret the resurrection in this text], we shall have the key to the solution of the millennial question in this passage” (Millennium, 35).

There are two questions I want to focus on: who is spoken of in this text to reign with Christ for a thousand years; what did John mean by “came to life” and “This is the first resurrection”?

1.) Who are the ones spoken of here in this text? Revelation 20:4 says, “Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those whom the authority to judge was committed. Also, I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands.” Let me make an observation from this text. The scene in this vision has changed from that of earth, in vv. 1-3 to heaven. Notice the thrones and souls. Of the forty-seven times “thrones” appears in Revelation, only three are not in heaven (2:13; 13:2; 16:10). Therefore it seems likely that these thrones are to be taken as heavenly thrones. Also, John sees souls of the martyrs. He does not see the bodies of the people but their souls. That is something that no one sees on earth. They are seen in heaven. Therefore it seems that the scene is a heavenly scene.

Now, I ask the question, are the souls pictured here the same as the ones sitting on the thrones? Those who sit on the thrones “the authority to judge was committed.” In other words they have some part in the judging that Christ is engaged in his kingdom. This could mean they come into agreement with Christ, they worship and praise Christ for his judgments, or they could actually take part in judging the earth. But these judges in the heavenly realms are given authority to judge the earth in some fashion.

Now are these individuals the same as those who follow? Anthony Hoekema seems to say yes, “We ask next, Who are seated on these thrones? The answer is given in the rest of the verse: ‘And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God’” (Millennium, 165).

Hoekema continues his description of these people seen by John, “Since John tells us he saw, ‘the souls of those who had been beheaded,’ it is quite clear that he is not talking about people who are still living on the earth” (Millennium, 165-166). He bases this claim upon the use of the word John uses for souls in v. 4 does not mean the same as what Luke uses in Acts 2:41. Hoekema says, “[In] Revelation 20:4 this meaning of the word psuchai will not work. One cannot translate tas psuchas ton pepelekismenon as ‘the people of those who had been beheaded’ or as ‘the men of those who had been beheaded’” (Millennium, 166).

Instead, Hoekema turns to the parallel in Revelation 6:9, “When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.” Notice the parallel in this verse to that of Revelation 20:4 where John writes, “Also, I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands.” John even uses the same word for souls here and this is a heavenly vision in 6:9.

Hoekema makes this observation, “John sees the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. In other words, he sees the souls of the martyrs–believers who had suffered a martyr’s death because of their faithfulness to Christ. When John wrote Revelation, many Christians were being martyred for their faith. Needless to say, the vision here recorded would bring great comfort to the relatives and friends of these martyrs” (Millennium, 166).

In translation issues, there is always the problem of punctuation. The ancient languages did not use punctuation marks. Every time a person reads the Bible and finds a comma or a period or any other punctuation mark, it is because the translators feel that it belongs there to fit the rules of 21st century grammar.

One example of the importance of this is found in Ephesians 4:11-12, “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work ministry, for building up the body of Christ.” Older translations read in v. 12, “to equip the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ.” If we take this translation, then those who are in the office of the gospel ministry have three areas of work: equip saints, ministry, build up the body.” However, almost all translators and commentators agree that it should read like the ESV as, “to equip the saints for the work of the ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ.” Here, the offices of v. 11 are to prepare the saints for ministry and for building up the body.

Hoekema notices a comma used by the ASV Bible, “‘They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands.’ [NIV] The New International Version renders these words as if they were a further description of the martyrs referred to in the preceding clause. There is, however, another possibility–the possibility conveyed by the translation found in the American Standard Version: ‘and such as worshiped not the beast neither his image, and received not the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand’ …I take therefore that in the clause we are now considering John is describing a wider group than just the martyrs” (Millennium, 166-167).

Hoekema is arguing that there are two groups identified in this text. The NASB and the ESV all follow this line of thinking. The ESV reads, “the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands.” Note here also, like the ASV, that there is a comma distinguishing these two groups from each other. It seems highly probable and most certain that John does not see one group, but rather two groups.

If this is true, as Hoekema and Boettner seem to think, then the souls seen in heaven aren’t just martyrs, but dead Christians in general. This lends even more weigh to the idea that this in heaven being seen, not an earthly kingdom. But what this does is that it shows that Christ’s kingdom is spiritual, not physical. Christ told Pilate in John 18:36, “Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.’” Indeed Jesus’ kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. The souls seen in this vision must be those who have died and are in heaven with Christ.

Premillennialists never try to define the nature of the kingdom because as Ladd puts it, “The New Testament nowhere expounds the theology of the millennium, that is, its purpose in God’s redemptive plan” (Millennium, 39). Given his interpretation of the millennial passage, it is indeed difficult to Scripturally define the purpose of this millennial kingdom. Ladd gives several reasons that are possibilities: further enable Christ to put his enemies under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25), to visibly reveal the sovereign reign of Christ “in history” (Millennium, 39). To quote Ladd directly, “The millennium will reveal to the world as we now know it the glory and power of Christ’s reign” (Millennium, 39). When Christ comes back with his glorified saints, the earth as it presently is, under the curse of sin, will experience the holy and glorified state of the living Christ, our God.

Loraine Boettner correctly picks up the absurdity of this notion. Boettner says, “That condition, semiheavenly and semiearthly, with Christ reigning –apparently–in Jerusalem with two radically different types of people [glorified and translated saints with unglorified men still living in their sinful flesh] strikes me as so unreal and impossible that I wonder how anyone could take it seriously. Such a mixed state of mortals and immortals, terrestrial and celestial, surely would be a monstrosity…Exalt the millennium as you please, it still remains far below heaven. It could not be other than a great anticlimax for those who have tasted heavenly glory to be brought back again to have part in this life. Such positions of authority and rulership as might be given to them in this world would be a poor compensation for the glory they have enjoyed in heaven” (Millennium, 49).

The millennial kingdom would be a farce of a hope to look to if it was earthly for those who have been raptured or resurrected from the grave. This vision is a vision in heaven of those who have tasted death on this earth. Ladd concedes, “There are admittedly serious theological problems with the doctrine of the millennium” (Millennium, 40). While all positions have the problems, it seems that the literal millennium is creating some rather large problems that are more difficult to overcome than that of the antichilliast position.

2.) What is the nature of the resurrection in this passage? Is this passage speaking of a bodily resurrection or a more spiritual resurrection? Which one? Premillennialism argues for a literal/bodily resurrection. Both premillennial positions are in agreement on this. The amillennial and postmillennial positions, or they are both referred to as antichiliast as they refute a literal millennium, see a more spiritual/symbolic resurrection. Let us now examine the debate.

The Chiliast, or premillennial position, is best argued by George Ladd. He makes an excellent observation to begin his discussion of the millennium, “The entire interpretation of the passage hinges upon the question of whether the first ezesan [trans. 'They lived' or 'they came to life'] and the ezesan of the rest of the dead mean the same thing, namely bodily resurrection” (Millennium, 35).

Here is his argument. He says, “The ’spiritual” interpretation of the first ezesan cannot be objected to one the grounds that the New Testament does not teach any spiritual resurrection, for it clearly does” (Millennium, 35-36). He cites Ephesians 2:1-6 where Paul says we were dead in our trespasses and sins. But God by his grace and riches in Christ has raised us up with Christ. We have been made alive with Christ. He goes further to cite John 5:25-29. Here he notes that Jesus teaches a spiritual resurrection in v. 25 and a physical resurrection in vv. 28-29. Thus John does advocate such a position and so does Scripture.

However, Ladd makes this case, “This passage does not provide a real analogy to the passage in the Apocalypse, however. There is an all-important difference. In John the context itself provides the clues for the for the spiritual interpretation in the one instance and the literal in the other” (Millennium, 36). Jesus says that the hour is coming and is now for the resurrection. That is a clear reference to a spiritual resurrection. In vv. 28-29 he says an hour is coming when those in the tombs will hear his voice. Some will go to life and the rest to death. He sums up this point very convincingly, “In Revelation 20 there is no such contextual clue for a similar variation of interpretation. The language of the passage is quite clear and unambiguous. There is neither necessity nor contextual possibility to interpret ezesan spiritually in order to introduce meaning to the passage” (Millennium, 37).

Some of the passages that Ladd used to support his bodily resurrection are Revelation 2:8 and Revelation 13:14 Revelation 2:8 says, “The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life (ezesan).” This is an obvious evidence for the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is correct. Look at Revelation 13:14, “the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived (ezesan).” But I direct your attention to v. 3 of that same chapter, “One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed.” Notice the key word in this text, “seemed.” The beast did not truly die, but only appeared to have died. He lived through this ordeal. So can Revelation 13:14 refer to a resurrection if the body to be resurrected is not dead?

Hoekema points out two verses in Revelation that clearly use zao, the verb stem from which ezesan originates in Greek, Revelation 7:2 and Revelation 15:7. In Revelation 3:1 John writes, “You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead.” Here the life is in reference to spiritual life because it is obvious Jesus is talking to a physically alive church. Hoekema makes this statement, “The reference to other uses of the verb zao in the book of Revelation, therefore, cannot be decisive in this matter” (Millennium, 58).

Ladd is correct in saying there is no contextual clue that gives a blatant rendering of the nature of the resurrection found in these verses. However, I remind the reader of the parallel found in Revelation 6:9 in which martyrs are found in heaven in a parallel situation as those found in Revelation 20:4. If 6:9 is spiritual, shouldn’t 20:4-5 be as well?

Wayne Grudem argues thus, “The…passages that amillennialists [and some postmillennialists] claim to support the view that there is only one resurrection, it must be said that those passages do not exclude the idea of two resurrections, but they simply do not specify whether or not the resurrection of the believers and unbelievers will be separated in time” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1119).

However, I find this argument lacking substance. He advocates an argument from silence. No the text does not specify, but then Grudem would be doing in John 5 what both he and Ladd say not to do in Revelation 20, namely read a meaning into the text that simply isn’t there. Let us stick to exegeting the texts. John says that those who are raised are raised either to eternal life or death. This resurrection of the righteous and the wicked happens at the same time.

Also, Matthew 25:31-46 seems to argue against this view of separate judgments. Here, the sheep and the goats are lined up and receive the judgments. Others say that this refers to the millennial kingdom but there is just no evidence that this is a precursor to the millennial kingdom. It lends its self to be Jesus’ own apocalyptic version of the Great White Throne judgment. So I think that the refutation to the antichiliast position by Grudem does not hold up to a careful reading of Scripture.

So what is a better alternative? Anthony Hoekema and Loraine Boettner support the following interpretation. With the shift of the vision to the scene in heaven, John sees the souls of believers. They are reigning with Christ in bliss. He is not seeing them in a bodily form but rather in a spiritual form. How you might ask? This is a vision as any scholar will tell you. Therefore this cannot be a physical resurrection, but a spiritual resurrection. Also, since this scene is the scene since the ministry of Christ began, the thousand years extends well beyond a literal thousand year period.

Bibliography
Clouse, Robert, ed. The Meaning of The Millennium: Four Views. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977).

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994).

Related posts:

My Millennial Views Pt. 1

The Lord Is Moving

Augustine